---
description: From money to military
---

# Bitcoin

{% hint style="info" %}
0ASIS advocates for wielding Bitcoin as a weapon — to inflict physical costs in, from, and through cyberspace — shifting classical warfare to a non-lethal, non-kinetic and massless form of _softwar_ as a pre-emptive strategy.&#x20;
{% endhint %}

## Cyberspace is the new frontier

Sovereign nations hold a sacred responsibility to protect and defend global domains — land, sea, air, space — for free movement and trade. Should a nation state deliberately hinder another nation state’s liberty to traverse these domains or trade freely, such actions are viewed as an act of war. The military's role is to defend these rights by inflicting physical costs on those who impede free movement or trade. Military branches — army, navy, air force, space force — each defend a specific domain, land, sea, sky, or space, ensuring access and freedom by deterring restrictions with harsh physical costs. Physical power is applied to prevent and discourage hostile actions in, from, and through these domains. The more a military service can leverage technology to project power in smart ways, the more effective it is at its core value-delivered function in their respective domains.

In the evolution of modern domains, alongside space, a unique domain has woven its way into prominence, psyscho-topographically termed _cyberspace_. Nations value and protect the flow of vital bits of information through cyberspace, akin to an important physical resource. Sovereign states hold the crucial role of defending free movement and trade in cyberspace, just as they protect land, sea, sky, and space. Should a nation deliberately constrains another's autonomy to navigate or exchange these valuable bits of information within cyberspace, such actions might as well be perceived as an act of war, reflecting the gravity of similar offences in traditional domain. Thus, a new era of rivalry looms, not in the pursuit of space dominance, but in a quest to conquer this virtual frontier — a potential cyberspace race.

## **The evolution of Bitcoin**

History shows that physical power consistently counters the rise of centralised and abstract control, be it in war or revolution. History affirms the lasting impact of physical power in all domains, suggesting cyberspace will follow suit. Prior to Bitcoin, nations struggled with defending cyberspace without resorting to physical (kinetic) force. The lack of tech for inflicting physical costs on hostile actors in, from, and through cyberspace changed with Bitcoin's open-sourced proof-of-work technology. Bitcoin evolves beyond finance, becoming a strategic tool in cyber power projection and geopolitics. Unlike typical software that binds computers with logical constraints, Bitcoin imposes physical constraints on computers, measuring its power projection in watts to counter oppressive actors. Bitcoin's _proof-of-work_ stands as a new form of cyber defence, exerting physical constraints on hostile actors in, from, and through cyberspace.

Bitcoin's ability to impose physical costs in, from, and through cyberspace paves the way for zero-trust networks and a decentralised _internet computer_, securing valuable bits of information, as truth and history. Viewing Bitcoin as a tool for projecting physical power in, from, and through cyberspace reveals its potential to redefine how modern societies perceive physical warfare. To 0ASIS, this is a more compelling description of Bitcoin’s potential technopolitical and strategic value than strictly “peer-to-peer electronic cash.” _Bitpower_ could be far more impactful to society than just _Bitcoin_.

## **From money to guerrilla weapon system**

Warfare's role in agrarian societies as a check on power abuse underscores Bitcoin's potential as more than digital cash, but as a guerrilla weapons system. Bitcoin embodies Einstein's principle, swapping matter for energy, imposing costs via electrical charges across resistors, potentially redefining traditional warfare with the monetisation of electricity. Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin revolutionises consensus in distributed networks and emerges as a non-lethal, guerrilla cyber weapon, asserting dominance through _bits_, akin to power dynamics in the animal kingdom. This leads to a non-kinetic, massless, software-driven warfare form, potentially the main method for nations to physically protect their assets (money, land etc) and policies, moving beyond nuclear stalemate.

Bitcoin is poised to transform resource control, offering individuals a non-lethal, fair way to secure and assert claims over property, particularly valuable bits of information. The zero-trust, permission-less framework revolutionises resource management and property rights, radically shifting consensus on ownership and historical transfers, bypassing the need for mutual trust. This approach resists power corruption, guarding against position exploitation and heralding an era of _free freedom_ from totalitarian control.

Viewing Bitcoin as a military protocol rather than just a p2p electronic cash system reveals its strategic potential. Bitcoin’s bits can represent any kind of valuable information that people want it to represent, including but of course not limited to financial information. This technology is set to shift global power balance, akin to changes historically seen in major kinetic world wars. Machines, once creators of destructive weapons, may now guide humanity in defending itself from such dangers. This _softwar_ protocol, free from kinetic conflict and rooted in mutual benefit, showcases Bitcoin's potential for peace but this new _softwar_ approach bears an ecological cost with its significant carbon footprint, echoing the complex duality of military advancements throughout history.

## The harm of Bitcoin

Militaries around the world are known for their substantial fossil fuel consumption. Total military emissions, if considered a single nation, would be the world's fourth-largest emitter, exceeding Russia. Military emissions mainly stem from logistics transport, where combat-focused machinery lacks energy efficiency, and Bitcoin is no different.&#x20;

Bitcoin mining, the process essential for maintaining and securing the Bitcoin network, is energy-intensive. It requires a vast array of computers solving complex mathematical problems, a task that demands substantial electrical power. Competing to secure Bitcoin's network, computers use electricity akin to small-medium countries, leading to a hefty carbon footprint. Like all military structures, Bitcoin's irony is stark: positioned as a non-kinetic, non-destructive weapons system, it inadvertently exaggerates a major issue — climate change (if it does exist).

Statesmen and bureaucrats see a crucial opportunity to shift from Bitcoin's energy-intensive _proof-of-work_ model, prompting a reassessment of its block-mining contest. Switching from _proof-of-work_ to _proof-of-stake_ in applied cryptography promises lower energy use, but it's not a panacea and comes with its own set of challenges. Adopting proof-of-stake entrusts network integrity to _capital_, risking system manipulation by entities feigning decentralisation through dispersed stakes.&#x20;

The shift to proof of stake, despite its energy efficiency, risks duplicating neoliberal dynamics, where apparent decentralisation conceals concentrated power. Any attempt to transition from Bitcoin's _proof-of-work_ to _proof-of-stake_ highlights a false move to tackle its high energy use and carbon footprint. Therefore central to the 0ASIS discourse is this urgent question: Is there a responsibility to tackle the carbon footprint of Bitcoin's military operations?

0ASIS discourses leans towards 'yes', proposing it as a starting point to pivot from traditional climate change mitigation strategies to a new narrative of reformulating the political tongue of anarchism with the cryptography of Bitcoin and the scientific language of catastrophic climate change. Only such a narrative is capable of sabotaging the postmodern flows of the State and truly arrest the catastrophic trajectory of climate change. Yet, a key uncertainty lingers: the full harm of carbon emissions' economic and social impacts remains unclear — are they harmful, or are they not?

To genuinely address the “climate emergency” (if it does exist), a radical shift is imperative. The first step in crafting a climate-change-halting narrative is exploring a post-capitalist model beyond typical carbon trading schemes. This new model must accurately value each ton of carbon emission reflecting its real economic and social impact. The second step involves using this novel model as a financial tool for disrupting the postmodern flows of the State and pave the path for post-capitalist economies. The belief here is profound: ending late-stage capitalism is key to preventing ecological collapse. Such a narrative should urge a transformative shift beyond the neoliberal operating system and effectively halt climate change.
