Bitcoin

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

Love Tech + Art. 

Web3 Writing at: https://mirror.xyz/0xED217008de92D861b6990381abc9c6C27822B34A

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?

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

The security of Bitcoin PoW is a ticking time bomb.

Bitcoin fees are at a 13-year low—less than 10 BTC/day. Despite 2016, 2020, 2024 halvings, miner revenue from fees is at a 9-year low—just 1%.

low fees → low security budget → low security

Bitcoin's security model is https://t.co/tAnP0tEt3Q

Justin Drake

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.

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. 👇

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.