Is Bitcoin’s security future-proof? We dive deep into why Bitcoin’s long-term survival hinges on increasing its cost of attack—and how $NAT may be the missing piece. We explore the uncomfortable truth: Bitcoin isn’t being used as peer-to-peer cash, and the current fee model may not be enough to sustain its security past 2140. We challenge core assumptions about BTC’s future, question the infinite doubling thesis, and unpack how @natgmi aims to subsidize miners, increase decentralization, and reinforce Bitcoin’s cost of attack without altering its monetary policy. From trillion-dollar hypotheticals to hardware realities, this is part 1 of our breakdown of the NATpaper. Topics: First up, they explore why Bitcoin’s value doesn’t come from its market cap, but rather its cost of attack — and how that defines its long-term viability. Next, they break down why Bitcoin alone may not be able to sustain its own security budget forever, especially as mining rewards approach zero by 2140. Then, they introduce the NAT token as a potential solution — not just a subsidy, but a parallel system to reinforce Bitcoin’s decentralization and resilience. And finally, they take on critics like Adam Back and lay the foundation for NAT’s origin, design, and why it may be the most important innovation since Bitcoin itself. Please like and subscribe on your favorite podcasting app! Sign up for a free newsletter: www.theblockrunner.com Follow us on: Youtube: https://bit.ly/TBlkRnnrYouTube Twitter: bit.ly/TBR-Twitter Telegram: bit.ly/TBR-Telegram Discord: bit.ly/TBR-Discord