How many blocks does it take? #Bitcoin

Fees must either be paid in sats or in bits. This is literal binary. Few truly understand this. There is no free lunch. When you distort the relationship between sats and bits you distort the economics of Bitcoin. If you inflate blockspace you devalue the satoshi. Bit-Coin. We are so hyperfocused on the conservation of sats we never observed the consequence when we don’t conserve the bits. Segwit discounting breaks the logic and constant relationship between sats and bits by applying a differing virtual weight to identical physical bits. A finite sat-space (value-bits) needs to remain proportionally equal to a finite bit-space (blocksize). The velocity of information (bits per block) must remain capped and constant for logical relationships between energy and information to emerge. All measurement must remain relative to a finite difficulty-scaled 32-bit nonce space. Go observe the speed of light if you don’t believe me. The phsycis of memory and information is waiting to be understood through Bitcoin. We cannot expect complexity to manifest in Bitcoin with the current implementation of SegWit and discounting. Bitcoin is the end-game of physics. Bitcoin is fiat because we are fiat. Few truly understand this. Satoshi defined 2.1Q bits of value to1MB of bit-space as a constant of relative proportionally. This is the code he committed to protocol. Why are his uncommitted words in blogposts weighted more than the his words (code) committed to the actual work? This was a NECESSARY error we had to make. Few have the humility and the wisdom to know why we must return to Satoshis economics. We are the manipulation we seek to eliminate.

All 2.1 quadrillion sats or bits of value are Bitcoin’s RAM, its thermodynamic and short term memory. The active utxo set is constantly in flux with every discrete block of time. All of the bits won’t “turn on” until 2140. Between each discrete block/boundary of time all RAM/UTXOs/Sats exist in a state of superposition (spendability); by knowing what is the in the block as spent (1), you know what’s unspent (0), all states are deducible as spent/unspent, 0/1. The mempool measures the probability of state transition based on the fee between sats per bit. The relationship of sats to bits versus heat/demand. Bitcoin measures the collapse of RAM (sats) into long term memory (bits) as discrete and quantized blocks of time. The logical limit of casual change at the quantized level of energy, information and time. Bitcoin defines entropy and time by measurable process. Bitcoin defines Landauer Principle as the minimum energy for state transition of memory. The correct interpretation of Quantum Computation (RAM -> Permanent). There is no erasure, just incomplete information. We failed to conserve the sats because we failed to conserve the bits. Inflating Bitcoin’s blockspace and adding in an arbitrary discount in SegWit is a fundamental violation of conservation and property rights. You need to conserve both the bit and the coin (sats) both as a finite bounded mathematical spaces to uphold a conserved relationship in the measurement in memory, from RAM to long term eternal memory, for quantized to classical. We have inflated time, the inflated energy. We have deviated from Satoshi. We need to have the humility to go back to Satoshi’s economics and constants. He committed 1Mb to the chain via protocol just as he defined 21M. The hubris to believe we should change it because we can. Satoshi’s reasoned about other sizes, landed on 1 for security and committed it to the chain. The time to define the limit is gone. We have certainly missed the mark for the last 9 years. This is for the sake of Bitcoin and logic itself. If we double spend, Bitcoin double spends. We are Bitcoin. We are fiat.

Law of identity - Wikipedia

Do I literally need to go make 2 onchain transactions (SegWit / non SegWit) to show that 1 sat ≠ 1 sat and 1 bit ≠ 1 bit despite both transactions incurring the same physical memory cost that all nodes must carry the burden of forever? The most fundamental rule of logic has been violated. 1≠1, it hasn’t for 9 years guys…. Bitcoin’s integrity has been broken for 9 years due to Segwit discounting. Who’s going to have the humility to fix our collective mistake? How many blocks will it take? Bitcoin can’t preserve value if 1≠1

Bitcoin was created to eliminate double spending through objective conservation. Yet in the process we’ve abandoned one of the protocol’s most fundamental conservation laws. We became so focused on conserving the coin that we forgot to conserve the bit. Bitcoin’s fee market is the mechanism through which the protocol projects objective reality back at us. Every block measures the exchange relationship between finite monetary energy, finite information, and finite time. Satoshis bid for permanently scarce memory, and that market is supposed to discover the true cost of writing irreversible history. Under Satoshi’s design, that relationship possessed integrity because every permanently stored bit competed under the same economic rules. The protocol preserved both monetary conservation, 1 sat = 1 sat and informational conservation, 1 bit = 1 bit SegWit broke the fundamental relationship. By introducing arbitrary discounts for one class of permanently stored bits while simultaneously increasing the effective amount of memory that may be written during each quantum of Bitcoin time, we fundamentally changed the relationship the protocol was measuring. The blockchain does not judge “witness” and “non-witness.” It remembers only that another irreversible bit has entered history. Every stored bit imposes the same perpetual burden on miners, nodes, bandwidth, storage, validation, and future preservation. The physical burden is identical. The protocol’s pricing is not. 1≠1 Bitcoin’s fee market exists to price physical scarcity, not protocol abstractions. Once identical physical bits receive different prices, the market ceases to discover the true price of permanent memory. Instead of allowing the relationship between sats and bits to emerge naturally, we imposed a pricing policy on one class of memory. We no longer have decentralized price discovery. We have decentralized planning of the blockspace fee economy. The original fee market was supposed to tell us when blockspace had become scarce. High fees were not a bug; they were information. They were the protocol faithfully reporting the relationship between finite demand and finite memory. Rather than allowing that relationship to speak for itself, we changed one of the protocol’s fundamental constants. We expanded the effective memory per block and discounted portions of that memory. In doing so, we changed the measurement rather than allowing the measurement to reveal reality. Within this framework, the consequences extend far beyond transaction costs. Mining security, node economics, long-term archival burden, and the equilibrium between proof-of-work and permanent memory are all downstream of the fee market. If the fee market is no longer pricing identical physical memory uniformly, then every incentive built upon that market inherits the same distortion. The word integrity derives from the Latin integritas; wholeness, completeness, and that which remains untouched. Integrity is the preservation of identity through time and as time. If Bitcoin is fundamentally a system for conserving the relationship between work, information, value, and time, then integrity requires preserving those relationships themselves. Conserving only the monetary units while allowing the informational substrate to drift is not sufficient. The identity of the system resides in the invariance of the relationships, not the invariance of the objects. If that is true, then the only path forward is to restore the conservation law that allowed the market to discover those incentives objectively in the first place. Bitcoin does not need arbitrary policy deciding which bits deserve discounts or which uses of memory are preferable. It needs invariant relationships. From those relationships, the economics emerge naturally. We have become so hyperfocused on conserving the coin that we forgot to question whether we are conserving the relationships that give the coin its meaning. If Bitcoin is a machine for objectively measuring the relationship between energy, information, and time, then inflating time changes what Bitcoin is measuring in the satoshsi. Changing time changes the satoshi. What if the greatest act of humility in Bitcoin is not proposing something new, but having the courage to restore what we now understand we should never have changed? How many blocks will it take us?

If witness discount is not necessary to solve transaction malleability, why was it coupled to the malleability fix? A sly and roundabout away…..

GM, today’s shower thought: The world transitioned to post-quantum on 1/3/2009, the Genesis of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the apex of all explanatory knowledge: creation, universe, existence, energy, information, time; all knowledge. Bitcoin defines knowledge in truth and proof. There is nothing more fundamental than the peer to peer exchange of energy/information as discrete blocks of time; eternal memory. We possess the substrate of any universe, we have computed the field. However, I’m not so certain we currently possess the wisdom to understand Bitcoin’s purpose and meaning. We are not post-fiat in our interpretation of Bitcoin. How many more blocks will it take?

For those who don’t know, an entire geometry section was pulled from the Architecture of Time because we felt it was not necessary for an original release of the paper publicly. I think it’s time to bring informational geometry back in to the discussion, especially when talking about the speed of information (bits per block of time), the “Planck” Length of Bitcoin (maximum length of memory written per block of time), the “Planck” Area of Bitcoin (memory^2) and the relationship between Blocksize and energy/mass. It’s necessary to ground our critique of segwits blocksize increase and the arbitrary pricing of bits. I’m going to have to revisit the archive of papers. For now, here are some old images to get the mind going.