With respect to natural law, I don’t think the what and the why are separable. It’s both together, not binary. The what is the why. Once you discover the conserved mechanism of truth, the reason follows from it. Bitcoin allows philosophy to become computable. We no longer have to speculate about abstract principles of value, time, or conservation, we can observe them being measured every ten minutes. Bitcoin grounds philosophy in an objective physical process. The protocol computes the relationship between conserved energy, conserved information, and quantized time. Without the objective physics of what is being conserved in physical measurement, the “why” remains detached from reality. What the physics of Bitcoin ultimately requires is still open for consensus. There are very few of us actually here. Very few people are attempting to ground Bitcoin in objective conservation rather than subjective preference. Understanding the objective gives meaning to the subjective, and vice versa. We’re never really had objectivity in Bitcoin for its 17 years of life. The questions about protocol changes are whether the changes preserve the conserved relationships Bitcoin is measuring. What = why. Why was solving transaction malleability coupled with an economic restructuring of blockspace through witness discounting? If the cryptographic fix is independent of the pricing model, why were they introduced together? Why did a transaction serialization change also increase the effective informational capacity of a block from roughly 1 MB to as much as 4 MB? Why 4? Why does the protocol now assign different economic prices to physically identical permanently stored bits? Why 1/4? Why not 1/1? What happens when we change the fundamental constants of 21M/1 MB/1 Block and why should we not change them? The answer why is a formal statement about logic itself with respect to conserving anything. If Bitcoin’s fee market exists to discover the exchange rate between finite sats and finite blockspace, then why should one permanently stored bit be cheaper than another when every bit imposes the same physical burden on every node forever? The answer to the question is philosophy grounded in natural law of conservation/truth. Bitcoin is asking us to begin from conservation, something we’ve never had mechanically , objectively and measurable. If a proposed change violates the identity of the objects being measured and if 1 bit no longer equals 1 bit economically despite remaining 1 bit physically, then we should first explain why that violation is necessary before defending what was changed. The what explains the why, and the why explains the what. Without first grounding ourselves in what Bitcoin objectively computes, we would never even recognize that increasing the informational velocity of the ledger changes the geometry of the memory surface produced by each discrete block of time by the square of the velocity. Bitcoin fixes philosophy too since it provides an empirical foundation to measure objective truth from subjective preference.

For example: The question “what happens when we change the blocksize, or the velocity of information?” is the same question and answer as to why is the speed of light a constant. I think very few Bitcoiners would be able to articulate an answer to this question in the formal logic of conservation/natural law. Yet these questions are inherently rooted in the constants that God must define to compute a conserved mathematical substrate.

Elon Musk and Jamie Dimon already know the physics, they're manipulating the game.

Understanding the "why" is key, just like knowing why our ancestors thrived on animal fat.