民族國家可以用自己的戰俘網絡與比特幣戰鬥嗎？

在關於X的討論中，Jason Lowery辯論了可重複使用的工作證明（RPOW）網絡的生存能力和未來，尤其是國家是否存在

Astronautical engineer and Major in the US Space Force, Jason Lowery, recently engaged in a discussion on Reusable Proof-of-Work (RPoW) networks, specifically addressing the possibility of nations attempting to create competing proof-of-work systems.

宇航員工程師和美國太空部隊的少校傑森·洛里（Jason Lowery）最近對可重複使用的工作證明（RPOW）網絡進行了討論，專門解決了試圖創建競爭性工作證明系統的國家的可能性。

The conversation was initiated by a question from Rabbit Hole Investor (@rabbitholeinvst) directed at Lowery, who is also the author of the “Softwar” thesis that highlights Bitcoin’s critical role in US national security.

對話是由針對Lowery的Rabbit Hole Investor（@rabbitholeinvst）的問題發起的，Lowery也是“軟件”論文的作者，該論文突出了比特幣在美國國家安全中的關鍵作用。

Can Nation-States Counter Bitcoin With Their Own PoW Network?

民族國家可以用自己的戰俘網絡對抗比特幣嗎？

Rabbit Hole Investor asked Lowery, “Do you see a future where other reusable proof of work networks are created for other applications?” In response, Lowery shared some questions he earlier received from the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy.

Rabbit Hole Investor問Lowery：“您是否看到了為其他應用程序創建其他可重複使用的工作網絡證明的未來嗎？”作為回應，Lowery分享了他早些時候從白宮科學技術政策辦公室收到的一些問題。

While he stated that predicting the future with absolute certainty is not possible, he shared his intuition that there will be one dominant RPoW network that gains universal acceptance, similar to how TCP/IP became the global standard for data transport.

雖然他說是無法確定的，但他分享了自己的直覺，即將有一個主要的RPOW網絡獲得普遍接受，類似於TCP/IP如何成為數據運輸的全球標準。

According to Lowery’s assessment:

根據Lowery的評估：

This was one of the questions I received from the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy. […] My intuition is that a single dominant Reusable Proof-of-Work (RPoW) network will emerge as the primary standard—much like how TCP/IP became the universal protocol for data transport […] In RPoW, network size directly translates to security. […] This consolidation of all RPOW applications into one RPOW network […] is a game-theoretic necessity.

這是我從白宮科學技術政策辦公室收到的問題之一。 […]我的直覺是，單個可重複使用的工作證明（RPOW）網絡將成為主要標準，就像TCP/IP如何成為RPOW中數據傳輸的通用協議[…]，網絡大小直接翻譯安全。 […]將所有RPOW應用程序整合到一個RPOW網絡中[…]是遊戲理論的必要性。

He elaborated on how RPoW’s security scales with computational power and energy expenditure, creating a “reinforcing cycle” that naturally drives participants to migrate to the largest and most secure network.

他詳細闡述了RPOW的安全性如何使用計算能力和能源消耗，創造了一個“加強週期”，自然會驅使參與者遷移到最大，最安全的網絡。

Lowery pointed to what he calls “Mutually Assured Preservation,” where even adversarial nation-states (e.g., NATO and BRICS) would effectively become “frenemies” on the same RPoW network. According to his assessment:

Lowery指出了他所說的“相互保證的保存”，即使在同一RPOW網絡上，即使是對抗性的民族國家（例如，北約和金磚國家）也將有效地成為“ Frenemies”。根據他的評估：

The cost of attacking either side increases to such an extent that they become ‘frenemies,’ each strengthening the security of the other’s interests on the same network.

攻擊雙方的成本增加到使它們成為“狂熱者”的程度，每個人都在同一網絡上增強了對方利益的安全性。

Lowery’s stance leans strongly toward Bitcoin as the dominant RPoW protocol. While he does not label himself a “Bitcoin Maximalist,” he makes it clear that Bitcoin is the de facto global PoW standard due to market forces and network effects.

Lowery的立場強烈傾向於比特幣作為主要的RPOW協議。儘管他沒有標記自己是“比特幣的最大主義者”，但他明確表示，由於市場力量和網絡效應，比特幣是事實上的全球戰俘標準。

Thomas Young, Managing Partner at RUMJog Enterprises, further probed Lowery’s thesis by asking about individual Bitcoin ownership and the monetization potential for BTC in a world where nation-states treat the network as “The Standard.”

Rumjog Enterprises的執行合夥人Thomas Young通過詢問個人比特幣所有權和BTC的貨幣化潛力，進一步調查了Lowery的論文，在這個世界上，民族國家將網絡視為“標準”。

Young’s question specifically explored whether individuals can practically own privately-held BTC and if interested nation states would “rent” privately-held BTC to misattribute or create diversification or prefer owning their BTC.

揚的問題專門探討了個人是否可以實際擁有私有的BTC，以及感興趣的國家是否將“租用”私人持有的BTC以誤解或創造多元化或更喜歡擁有其BTC。

In response, Lowery shared his belief that if Bitcoin becomes a global unit of account, its purchasing power will naturally increase as humanity grows more productive. This development, in his view, renders the pursuit of chasing yield obsolete, as Bitcoin itself becomes the ultimate yield.

作為回應，洛里（Lowery）表示相信，如果比特幣成為一個全球賬戶單位，隨著人類增長的生產力，其購買力自然會增加。在他看來，這一發展使追求追逐產量過時了，因為比特幣本身成為最終產量。

However, he also raised a cautionary flag regarding the promises of yield in a future scenario where governments might carry out executive orders to seize custodial BTC.

但是，他還提出了一個警告旗，內容涉及在以後的情況下，政府可能會執行執行命令以扣押BTC。

According to Lowery’s assessment:

根據Lowery的評估：

If I were a nefarious president or nation, I’d lure people into giving up self-custody of their BTC by dangling the promise of yield… Then, with a simple executive order, I’d nationalize NYDIG, Coinbase, and MSTR’s Bitcoin… This is why I don’t own MSTR. MSTR’s Bitcoin is a future president’s honeypot… When the next EO6102 inevitably comes, it will be widely supported.

如果我是邪惡的總統或國家，我會通過懸掛產量的承諾來誘使人們放棄對BTC的自我顧客……然後，通過簡單的行政命令，我將NYDIG，Coinbase和MSTR的比特幣國有化……這就是為什麼我不擁有MSTR的原因。 MSTR的比特幣是未來總統的Honeypot……當下一個EO6102不可避免地到來時，它將得到廣泛的支持。

Another user asked Lowery whether sovereign entities might create their own networks—for instance, sidechains or drivechains pegged into the main Bitcoin network—under their sovereign control.

另一位用戶詢問Lowery在其主權控制下是否可以創建自己的網絡（例如，錫德卡因或掛鉤到主要比特幣網絡）的網絡。

In response, Lowery highlighted the contrasting centralization aspects of Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS) protocols.

作為回應，Lowery強調了工作證明（POW）和股份證明（POS）協議的對比中心化方面。

According to Lowery’s assessment:

根據Lowery的評估：

If the goal is sovereign control over a network, then PoS is a far better design than PoW […] A nation (or any entity) could simply pre-mine the tokens, distribute them to itself, and implement a vote-based PoS system […] This structure would ensure that control remains centralized […] while still maintaining the (false) appearance of a decentralized system.

如果目標是對網絡的主權控制，那麼POS比POW […]一個國家（或任何實體）可以簡單地預先設置令牌，將其分配給本身並實施基於投票的POS系統的設計要好得多。 [ …]這種結構將確保控制保持集中[…]，同時仍保持分散系統的（錯誤）外觀。

He acknowledged the possibility of a nation creating an RPoW network with centralized administrative control but considers this approach more complex and less efficient compared to a straightforward proof-of-stake system for achieving centralized governance.

他承認有可能建立一個具有集中行政控制的RPOW網絡的可能性，但與直接實現集中式治理的持有證明體系相比，這種方法更加複雜，效率更低。

As the conversation progressed, Lowery maintained his line of argument, suggesting that game-theoretic pressures—both among individuals and nation-states—tend to favor consolidation around a single, most secure PoW network.

隨著談話的進行，Lowery保持了他的論點，這表明遊戲理論的壓力（無論是個人和民族國家之間）傾向於圍繞一個，最安全的POW網絡而傾向於合併。

He argues that Bitcoin’s sheer scale and deeply-

他認為比特幣的純粹規模和深度 -