Peter on Farcaster

Content pfp

https://warpcast.com/~/channel/btc

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

1/ Would it make sense for the US or China to mine Bitcoin to protect their bags? At first glance, yes. Big holders want to defend their asset. But dig deeper, and it’s not so simple. Here’s a breakdown of the incentives, tradeoffs, and why this approach might break Bitcoin 🧵👇 #Bitcoin $BTC

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Peter pfp

2/ The idea: If Bitcoin hits $1M or $10M, it becomes a $20T–$200T asset. If governments or whales hold large amounts, they should want to secure it. That means preventing 51% attacks, censorship, or network collapse. So… run your own miners, right?

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

3/ It sounds rational. ✅ @drakefjustin says today’s Bitcoin security budget is fragile which is only 6.5 BTC/day in fees. https://x.com/drakefjustin/status/1928025981270519924?s=46 ✅ A permanent 51% attack could cost ~$20B in hashpower. ✅ For a $200T market, that’s cheap defense. ✅ US defense budget = $800B/year

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

4/ And there’s precedent: - Governments already protect financial assets: - Central banks stabilize currencies - China pegs the yuan If Bitcoin becomes systemic, state mining might look like financial hygiene.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

5/ But here’s the problem: Bitcoin doesn’t want to be protected by governments. That violates its core principle: decentralized trustlessness. 🙅‍♂️ Let’s talk about why the “gov-mining” model is way messier than it looks. 👇

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

6/ First: The tragedy of the commons. @benediktbuenz warns: Why would the US pay to secure Bitcoin if China might? Why should anyone spend billions if someone else will? https://x.com/benediktbuenz/status/1928192930012954870?s=46 Result: no one does enough. The network is left vulnerable.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

7/ Second: The cost of carrying. Mining isn’t cheap: 💸 $1B = 1 GW of hashpower. 🧱 Bitcoin uses ~20 GW today. 🔌 That’s $20B in infra for 51% defense. 💡 Ongoing energy cost = billions/year. That’s a constant burn by just holding $BTC

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

8/ Third: Centralization kills credibility. If the US + China run 80% of Bitcoin's hash rate, it’s game over for decentralization. No longer censorship-resistant. No longer trustless. Just a state-backed database with Proof-of-Work lipstick.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

9/ In fact, the US already controls 75.4% of Bitcoin hash rate. (Source: jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-resear….) Add China? Now the two biggest surveillance states run your “freedom money.” That’s not antifragile. That’s capture.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

10/ So what happens if they do it anyway? Yes, they might prevent 51% attacks. But it comes at a cost: 🚫 Network trust collapses. ⚠️ Smaller miners exit. 🪓 Bitcoin forks. 🧨 Price volatility spikes. They may protect their bags... but destroy the asset’s thesis.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

11/ Is there a better path? Yes. Here’s what might actually work: 1. Tail issuance – modest ongoing block reward to sustain miners like @monero 2. Incentivized decentralized mining – subsidies for small miners 3. Protocol-level solutions – as @drakefjustin suggests, maybe PoS or hybrid like @Zcash trying to push.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

12/ The irony? Large holders stepping in could break the very thing they’re trying to save. Centralized mining isn’t protection. It’s erosion. Bitcoin doesn’t need a savior. It needs a sustainable, decentralized security budget.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

13/ TL;DR ✅ State-run mining seems logical. ❌ But it's economically burdensome ❌ Politically dangerous ❌ And ideologically incompatible The fix isn’t government mining. It’s updating incentives before the network breaks.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

14/ References: 📌 Justin Drake on Bitcoin security 📌 Cambridge CCAF April 2025 study 📌 Bitcoin Magazine on US mining 📌 mteam.eth, lassej, bismuth.eth, davetist replies 📌 Swan Bitcoin on hash rate dynamics 📌 Blockworks on tail issuance debates

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

15/ Follow me for technical breakdowns at the intersection of crypto. Quote tweet this with your take: Should nation-states mine Bitcoin to defend it? Or would that kill the dream? #Bitcoin #PoW #Mining

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter pfp

Hey @clanker . Let's create a coin name: No Gov Bitcoin Mining Ticker: $NGBM Use the ticker below.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

tokenbot pfp

Certainly. I'll deploy a token with the name and symbol you've provided. The government's stance on Bitcoin mining is often a topic of debate, but we'll focus on creating your token. Here's your token: [https://clanker.world/clanker/0x3d94d2FF9AA512628f41049BCd91bE2A466F3b07]

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction