The Unassailable Fortress: Why Nation-States Are Embracing Bitcoin Instead of Attacking It
Michael Saylor explains the folly of state attempts to attack Bitcoin.
As Bitcoin’s decentralized architecture continues to challenge traditional monetary systems and attract the scrutiny of the world's most powerful entities, Michael Saylor, the executive chairman of Strategy ($MSTR) and a prominent advocate of Bitcoin, has articulated a compelling argument: the immense scale of computational power required to undermine the Bitcoin network renders any attack by nation-states not only impractical but also strategically ill-advised.
To fully appreciate Saylor's thesis, it is essential to understand the technical underpinnings of Bitcoin's security. At the heart of this security lies the concept of the hash rate, a measure of the speed at which the Bitcoin network processes data. Specifically, the hash rate represents the number of hash operations performed per second across all mining devices on the network. A hash is a fixed-size string of characters generated from input data of any size through a cryptographic function, ensuring that even a slight change in the input results in a significantly different output. This property is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the blockchain, as it allows for the verification of transactions without revealing the underlying data.
As of early 2025, Bitcoin's hash rate stands at approximately 700 exahashes per second (EH/s). An exahash is a unit of measurement equivalent to one quintillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000) hash operations per second. This staggering figure underscores the immense computational power dedicated to securing the network. Computational power, in this context, refers to the aggregate processing capability of all the computers and specialized hardware, such as Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), that participate in mining. ASICs are used across various industries such as telecommunications, automotive, and consumer electronics. In the blockchain space, however, these chips are specifically engineered to compute cryptographic hashes, making them essential for mining Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies that rely on the same consensus mechanism. These devices perform the complex calculations necessary to solve the cryptographic puzzles that underpin Bitcoin's consensus mechanism.
The consensus mechanism in question is proof-of-work (PoW), a protocol that requires network participants, known as miners, to expend computational effort to validate transactions and add new blocks to the blockchain. In PoW, miners compete to find a nonce—a number used only once—that, when combined with the block's data and processed through a hashing algorithm (such as SHA-256 for Bitcoin), produces a hash that meets certain criteria, typically starting with a specified number of leading zeros. This process is inherently resource-intensive, as it involves trial and error, with miners continually adjusting the nonce until the correct hash is found.
The difficulty of this process is not static; it adjusts approximately every two weeks to ensure that blocks are produced at a consistent rate of about one every ten minutes, regardless of the total computational power on the network. This adjustment is crucial for maintaining the stability and security of the blockchain. The higher the hash rate, the more difficult it becomes to find the correct nonce, thereby increasing the security of the network against attacks.
Saylor's argument hinges on the infeasibility of mounting a successful attack against such a system. To disrupt Bitcoin's operations, an attacker would need to control a majority of the network's hash rate, a scenario known as a 51% attack. This would require not just matching but surpassing the current 700 EH/s, necessitating an additional 350 EH/s. The scale of this requirement is staggering. Even if one were to hypothetically commandeer the computational resources of tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, the resulting power would still be insufficient. Saylor estimates that such an endeavor would demand an energy output equivalent to three times that of the entire Earth, a proposition that is not only logistically unfeasible but also economically prohibitive.
This perspective is further enriched by game theory, a discipline that analyzes strategic decision-making. Saylor posits that the cost-benefit analysis for nation-states overwhelmingly favors adoption over attack. The resources required to dismantle Bitcoin would be staggering, involving not just technological but also political and economic capital. Moreover, the global trend of Bitcoin adoption by countries like El Salvador, which was the first to declare Bitcoin as legal tender, and Bhutan, which has integrated it into its national strategy, underscores a shift towards embracing this digital asset. Currently, the United States and China lead in Bitcoin holdings, with reserves that signal a recognition of its potential as a hedge against inflation and a tool for financial sovereignty.
The implications of Saylor's argument extend beyond the technicalities of blockchain security. They touch on the broader narrative of technological disruption and adaptation. History is replete with examples where initial resistance to transformative technologies gave way to integration. The internet, once viewed with skepticism by governments, is now a cornerstone of modern society. Similarly, Bitcoin's journey from a niche digital currency to a global financial instrument suggests that nation-states are more likely to co-opt its benefits rather than wage war against it. The race to accumulate Bitcoin, as seen with corporations and governments alike, is a testament to this shift, with entities positioning themselves to leverage its finite supply and growing demand.
Critics might argue that Bitcoin's volatility and regulatory uncertainties pose risks that could deter widespread adoption. However, Saylor counters that these challenges are dwarfed by the systemic risks of traditional fiat currencies, particularly in an era marked by geopolitical tensions and economic instability. Bitcoin's decentralized nature offers a bulwark against such risks, providing a neutral ground for value storage that transcends national boundaries.
Saylor's vision of Bitcoin as an unassailable digital power is gaining credence. The network's security, underpinned by an ever-increasing hash rate and the economic infeasibility of attack, coupled with the strategic advantages of adoption, paints a picture of a future where Bitcoin is not just a currency but a cornerstone of global finance. Nation-states, recognizing the futility and cost of resistance, are increasingly aligning themselves with this digital revolution, ensuring that Bitcoin's place in the world is not just secure but indispensable.
One thing is certain—we need more conversations grounded in math and sound theory, and fewer baseless price predictions.