The proposition that Bitcoin would be the best choice in a scenario where China and the United States go to war involves several considerations rooted in economics, geopolitics, and the unique characteristics of Bitcoin as a financial asset. Here's an analysis based on various perspectives:

### Financial Safe Haven:

- Decentralization: Bitcoin's decentralized nature means it's not controlled by any single entity or government, which could theoretically make it less susceptible to direct manipulation or seizure by either warring country.

- Digital Gold: Often referred to as "digital gold," Bitcoin has been seen by some investors as a hedge against inflation or currency devaluation, which could become significant concerns if economic sanctions, currency wars, or hyperinflation scenarios arise from the conflict.

- Cross-Border Transactions: Bitcoin's ability to facilitate cross-border transactions without needing traditional banking systems could be beneficial for moving assets out of war-torn or embargoed regions, though its use for large-scale transactions still faces scalability issues.

### Geopolitical Implications:

- Sanctions and Economic Blockades: If one or both countries impose sanctions or blockades, Bitcoin could serve as a means to bypass these financial restrictions. However, this assumes that Bitcoin's infrastructure (like exchanges, wallets) remains accessible or isn't also targeted by sanctions.

- State Reactions: In response to Bitcoin's potential as a tool for evading sanctions, either country might take regulatory actions against cryptocurrency exchanges or users, which could impact Bitcoin's usability or value.

### Market Dynamics:

- Volatility: Bitcoin's price could see extreme volatility. In times of war, Bitcoin might either be seen as a safe haven, driving its price up, or as a speculative asset whose value could plummet due to broader market panic.

- Speculative Frenzy: Historical data suggests that during geopolitical tensions, Bitcoin might attract more investors looking for an alternative to traditional financial systems. However, this also attracts speculation, which could lead to bubbles and subsequent bursts.

### Practical Considerations:

- Infrastructure Dependency: For Bitcoin to be effective as a financial tool during war, the underlying infrastructure (internet, electricity, etc.) must remain functional. War could disrupt these, limiting Bitcoin's utility.

- Regulation and Legality: The status of Bitcoin in legal and regulatory frameworks could change rapidly in wartime scenarios, affecting its use.

- Liquidity: Converting Bitcoin back into stable currencies or goods might become challenging if markets seize up or if Bitcoin exchanges face issues due to war-related disruptions or regulatory crackdowns.

### Sentiment from X (Formerly Twitter) and Broader Speculation:

- There's a spectrum of opinions on X, with some users advocating for Bitcoin as a superior asset in times of war due to its potential to act outside traditional financial systems. Conversely, others highlight its risks, like regulatory crackdowns or its speculative nature potentially leading to significant value drops.

### Conclusion:

Whether Bitcoin would be the "best" choice in a China-U.S. war scenario depends heavily on how one defines "best." For some, especially those who believe in a significant shift towards decentralized finance or those looking to bypass state-controlled financial systems, Bitcoin might indeed seem like the best option. However, for others concerned with stability, legal risks, or the immediate practicality of using a digital asset during times of crisis, Bitcoin's suitability might be debated.

The scenario would likely see Bitcoin playing a role, possibly as an avenue for capital flight or as a store of value, but its effectiveness would be contingent on numerous external factors, including regulatory responses, the war's impact on global infrastructure, and shifts in investor sentiment towards cryptocurrencies.