Bitcoin a National Security, Not a Threat

[bitcoindusts]

This is an opinion by Matt Smith, an operations officer for the United States Air Force and an assistant professor of aerospace studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln as the article[1] stated.

Titled FOR THE U.S., BITCOIN IS A NATIONAL SECURITY OPPORTUNITY, NOT A THREAT

The article stated two pointers:

1. DIGITAL CURRENCY CAN NO LONGER BE IGNORED

Part of the most recent NSS, under the “Trade And Economics” section, states, “[the U.S.] will explore the merits and responsibly lead development of digital assets, including a digital dollar, with high standards and protections for stability, privacy, and security to benefit a strong and inclusive U.S. financial system and reinforce its global primacy.”

Despite being labeled “magic internet money” and “rat poison” over the last decade, the rise of Bitcoin secured its credibility and since then, has gradually made its way into committees and boardrooms consisting of members holding the highest positions of influence. It can no longer be ignored. The aforementioned excerpt of the NSS provides important insight into the executive branch’s current view of the growing significance of developing digital assets like Bitcoin.

One driver for this growing interest into digital assets is undoubtedly the U.S. national debt, as the nation currently runs a $31 trillion deficit with no sign of slowing down. Senator Rand Paul recently acknowledged that “the greatest national security risk is our debt” after the release of a single, $1.7 trillion (or roughly 95 million bitcoin, in today’s value) spending package. The mountain of national debt is certainly a cause of concern.

2. THE U.S. CAN ADOPT BITCOIN

However, there may not be a need for the U.S. to invent a domestic digital dollar as Bitcoin fits the criteria that the NSS details. Bitcoin is the hardest form of money and provides the highest standards of protection to individuals. It is the most stable digital asset as it continues to release a new block every 10 minutes, and is the most inclusive monetary protocol as it allows not just individuals with social security numbers and two forms of government-issued IDs to access its benefits, but its open-source protocol grants protection and services to everyone including the 1.4 billion unbanked people across the world while the Lightning Network promotes efficient transactions, arguably the most important dimension of a globalized economy.

As more individuals, companies, banks and countries are forced by the market to pay out loans in bitcoin instead of notes, holders of the largest bitcoin stacks will naturally gain more influence. Its built-in deflationary nature and absolute scarcity features ensures that 100% of the work and value created by people is enjoyed and never diminished through monetary debasement. Lastly, Bitcoin’s enormous defense system discourages bad actors as the cost of attack has become too great and thus forces peaceful and mutually beneficial agreements.

In every sense, the Bitcoin protocol perfectly aligns with the core values of the United States and its national security strategy. Contrary to what some senior officials claim, Bitcoin does not generate a national security risk. Instead, ignoring the Bitcoin network would significantly impede the U.S.’s ability to pay its national debt, “outmaneuver [its] geopolitical competitors” and weaken the country’s economic instrument of power, which aims to leverage the country’s wealth to influence the behaviors of others. Thus, further delaying Bitcoin adoption is the national security risk.

I agree with the opinion of the author, instead of creating and spending billions of dollar in creating infrastructure of CBDC  the US can just adopt Bitcoin since as the article stated, it fits that criteria the NSS details.  But I bet the people who is in authority will reject the idea because they will definitely think that they will lose control over the finance system of the government but I believe adopting Bitcoin as an alternative mode of payment won't harm the financial structure instead it opens lots of opportunities and business venture that can help the economic situation of the country.

Upon reading the whole article this leave me thinking, is it possible for the US to think the same as the author and accept Bitcoin as a National Security and not a threat? Personally I doubt that since financial institution are hostile whenever an entity disrupt their traditional epic fail system.



[1] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-is-national-security-for-u-s

[gunhell16]

What else do you expect from officials with high positions in the government regarding this matter the thing is that they always want them to have the power to control like bitcoin until now they still think to control it even though it is impossible in reality because it is decentralized.

Maybe it's possible when they see that they have no other choice in the future. So you know for a fact that if El Salvador was able to accept Bitcoin without hesitation, I think the time will come when they will also accept this matter of bitcoin.

[hugeblack]

However, there may not be a need for the U.S. to invent a domestic digital dollar as Bitcoin fits the criteria that the NSS details

I don't know if this is what he said or not, but I stopped reading after this line.
Unless the United States can control Bitcoin, it will not adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, and as long as Bitcoin is decentralized, the first condition has not been met.

Therefore, everyone who tries to say otherwise is a dreamer.

[tbct_mt2]

Bitcoin does not have to be legal tender. It only needs good adoption and if companies, services feel Bitcoin is a good asset and safe for transaction, payments, they will accept it naturally. Without enforcement of legal tender from governments, Bitcoin will still be accepted globally.

What we need is no ban on Bitcoin from governments. I believe they won't ban it and only become accepting Bitcoin at wider scales. Legal tender is like an exaggeration but not actually necessary for Bitcoin existence and adoption.

[mbare]

Bitcoin will probably not be treated as a support of national security, simply because it takes away control from the government. Every loss of control is what weakens a government, so they will probably not accept it.

[Edwardard]

What we need is no ban on Bitcoin from governments.

History tells us that that the more they try to ban it, the more it rises back. Now even if they ban it, the true bitcoin lovers will still find a way so in the end we win again. I heard China tried to ban it a lot of times and India too but both failed to stop it lol.
Remember this, it is not secure because it doesnt get attacked, but it is secure becz it generates immunity by being attacked all the time

[kizlod]

How can Bitcoin be national security if it's decentralized and can be easily used worldwide? I don't those people know what are they talking about...

[taufik123]

Bitcoin does not have to be legal tender. It only needs good adoption and if companies, services feel Bitcoin is a good asset and safe for transaction, payments, they will accept it naturally. Without enforcement of legal tender from governments, Bitcoin will still be accepted globally.

What we need is no ban on Bitcoin from governments. I believe they won't ban it and only become accepting Bitcoin at wider scales. Legal tender is like an exaggeration but not actually necessary for Bitcoin existence and adoption.

Currently, it is still quite challenging to get bitcoin legalized by the government. Developing countries only get semi-legal regulation, that is, it is only allowed as a commodity and nothing more. There are also several developed countries that openly reject bitcoin, such as China, and other countries, such as El Salvador, which accept bitcoin as a legal means of transaction.

Each government has its own rules. Bitcoin will indeed still be accepted globally, but there will be limits that cannot be crossed or it could be included in the gray area.

The existence of bitcoin adoption at this time is still not really needed, but with the development of time and increasingly advanced technology, Bitcoin is becoming an asset that may require adoption in several sectors, you need to see how the government can provide proper regulation for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin will not be a threat to anyone, if they feel threatened then someone is wrong with their system.

[franky1]

crypto being a national security threat, is only true if it was to truly disrupt fiat.

for instance instead of speculating to a price of dollar. if crypto exchanges speculated to "min wage" where by 1btc of 1600x min wage means $16,000 in us and $380 in africa. where by this would be "fair value" for the world, where each coin no matter location is worth 1600 hours of labour.. but would disrupt the forex of fiat, because africans would sell for dollar and then use forex to buy african currency to then buy 33coins. and rinse and repeat. which would cause disruption to the forex exchange rates between us and africa until us and africa went 1:1

this disruption has not occured.
nor has mass population vetoed using fiat to only transact in crypto..

so i see no "national security threat"

as for some replies in the topic saying "why would they invest in crypto" or "they should just use bitcoin and kill fiat"

well no.. central banks want to fully control the products they create(fiat) by using crypto as a replacement of fiat still plays at the whims of 'value discovery' of mining and world speculation 'price discovery'. plus crypto has no 'minus' meaning they cant do debt on the bitcoin blockchain.

so they want their own system of accounting that can go into the minus and they 'premine'/mint any amount they like, under their own choice. to be able to control and offer debt and QE

they will obviously invest in crypto for their own business deals internally. its already been noted the central banks all linked to BIS have requested a 5% ability to invest in decentralised coins which the BIS is going to finally allow just 2% investment (in their recent response) to begin in 2025
aswell as a near limitless investment amount in stable coins and centralised coins that meet certain criteria

however these small investment amounts will not provide banks security to never go full 2008 again.. banks wil still go bust and ask for bailouts

[RealMalatesta]

Having a lot of bitcoin on the treasury means that you would be protecting your currency and that is not a bad thing, but that is only possible if we are talking about smaller nations. USA is too big, which means they have like 30 trillion dollars in debt or something, and constantly increase the debt ceiling.

I have zero idea how other nations are fine with their debt, like they can't force America to pay the debt back, so USA just makes more and more debt, and don't care if they can't pay it back. But that doesn't mean that they could protect their money via crypto, there is just not enough money there, USA is bigger than crypto a few times over. It must be smaller nations like Argentina who are in financial trouble that should do it.

[franky1]

Having a lot of bitcoin on the treasury means that you would be protecting your currency and that is not a bad thing, but that is only possible if we are talking about smaller nations. USA is too big, which means they have like 30 trillion dollars in debt or something, and constantly increase the debt ceiling.

I have zero idea how other nations are fine with their debt, like they can't force America to pay the debt back, so USA just makes more and more debt, and don't care if they can't pay it back. But that doesn't mean that they could protect their money via crypto, there is just not enough money there, USA is bigger than crypto a few times over. It must be smaller nations like Argentina who are in financial trouble that should do it.

america has no REAL debt

they own the patent of the dollar, they own the mint that prints the money, they own the BOA that hoards the money, they own the treasury that creates a loan agreement with the boa,

its basically where you doodle a silly image on a piece of paper  
[$1 ° ͜ʖ ͡° $1]

and you(right pocket) say to yourself i want that its valuable,
so you put it in your left pocket, then you ask for a loan from your left pocket to give it to your right pocket and then say the right pocket then owes your left pocket

even though everything is YOU.. you owe yourself
....

the debt ceiling is not even a ceiling.. because a ceiling is a fixed structure roof..
their ability to grow the 'shelter' is more of a tree canopy not ceiling

[pooya87]

Bitcoin is neither national security nor a threat.
It is always weird when they try to create weird definitions like this.

Countries don't need to adopt bitcoin and probably shouldn't. Whether it is El Salvador or United States. The solution to all the economic problems is also not bitcoin and it definitely won't help the $31.5 trillion US national debt that keeps on rising at scary rates.
Bitcoin is an exit for regular people who don't want to only rely on the centralized and corrupt inflationary monetary system ruled by the banking cartel.

america has no REAL debt
they own the patent of the dollar, they own the mint that prints the money, they own the BOA that hoards the money, they own the treasury that creates a loan agreement with the boa,

When they print money, they are creating REAL debt.

[Chucksmark]

I think it will be very difficult for any country to accept Bitcoin as legal tender. Because Bitcoin is decentralized, it will be very difficult for the government to control the affairs of the people. Most governments are fighting against it because they feel the people are taking power from them.

[Jawhead999]

I think it will be very difficult for any country to accept Bitcoin as legal tender. Because Bitcoin is decentralized, it will be very difficult for the government to control the affairs of the people. Most governments are fighting against it because they feel the people are taking power from them.

Not that difficult if the government are really supportive to make Bitcoin as legal tender, there's nothing wrong to accept a decentralized thing even though it's need to be centralized. It's not make sense if government doesn't want to accept Bitcoin because people can use it to money laundering, but they forgot fiat can be used to laundering too by paying through cash, so it make the banks can't trace where the money is going to.