What's the topic of your interview, is it related to optimal human nutrition?

Using bitocin as free data storage doesn’t scale. Satoshi wrote extensively on this. Such ignorance. Keep the base layer free and lean. We don’t need any other use cases other than money or bitcoins security will be at risk… it already is 70% non monetary data.

If all that is inscribed is value…. That which is built on the timechain…. That is most aligned with the value it hold…. Those additional layers or second, third, fourth…. order effects. Those are what society uses and those are what impact us the most or have the most noticeable impact on our systems/institutions we use for measuring everything else we hold dear in society…. All that…. Does not need to be recorded on the timechain…. The value embedded there is how society will keep score

lol explain to me how a monkey jpeg performing an disgusting act being inscribed onto the chain has value? Cause that’s what happened. That’s what Core allowed to be inscribed. Over and over again. 70% of blocks are now non monetary. Or what about dog$ coin? A meme coin built on Bitcoin, inscribed into the ledger to scam people. It provides zero value. It’s not money. And it’s a security risk to the network. What you just posted is a bunch of nonsense. Run a node and verify for yourself what is actually happening. Cause prentending everything inscribed into BTC is value is complete ignorance and extremely foolish. That’s not how decentralization works. The nodes run the network and decide what bitcoin is. And it’s money. Not jpegs. Not scam tokens. Not Data storage.

I love the Janus aspect that Bitcoin facilitates. Time, consciousness, power curve. Chapeau to everyone who is exploring this 🎓

How many jpegs of monkeys doing whatever do you think people will pay for when block space becomes more and more expensive? Bitcoin is going to do what it is going to do. I run a node

Objectively, Bitcoin does not work without data storage. Any transaction on the ledger regardless of content is inscription in the shared global memory for eternity. No one is claiming free data storage. I don’t want free storage, the fee market is there to ensure the bits aren’t free. Arguably SegWit introduced a discount on bitspace, which after ~9 years is finally to showing its true color thru additional protocol changes. If you hate spam, you should hate SegWit too. A forced discounting mechanism for specific bits should not exist. SegWit increased blocksize in a sly and roundabout way. Now we pay the price of our actions; every node pays for discounted bits which is seemingly outpacing Moore’s Law and sustainable chain growth. We can revert the chain back to 2017 (pre-Segwit) protocol code and I will still argue that immutable eternal memory is the sole source of all value in Bitcoin. No inscription (writing truth into finite memory/time by energy; aka money), no conservation, no value. Satoshi also talked about Quantum, which you have come out publically and agreed with me that it is not a threat and Bitcoin was the proper interpretation of a quantum computer. So which of Satoshi’s words do we take as gospel and which do we not? He gave us Bitcoin, he was not a master of every adjacent domain subject. It is us who have drifted from Satoshi’s original protocol through our desire to scale the chain. Segwit plays a major role in the pricing spam on chain, which doesn’t allow the free/fee market to be a proper arbiter of truth. 3/4 discount of certain bits means it will take 3x the amount of blocks or 3x the amount of bits nodes must store to price out this behavior, do you not recognize this? If you hate spam, you hate Segwit too. @Kyma Fi Was Segwit the original Landauer Attack? View quoted note →

You won’t be able to run a node for long with that attitude… if you like perpetuating scams and are okay with storing csam for free on your node, I really don’t have time to convince how fucking stupid you are.

Nodes don’t get paid for storage of the data dumbass… Im not talking about fees, you deliberately are misinterpreting what I mean by free data storage. Fees just prevent minor attacks and go to miners. Csam, institutional attacks, and scams on BTC are essentially free at the expense of the node. If you really can’t understand how this is a security risk Im just gonna block you cause I don’t have time to explain this to you over and over again. These fees haven’t priced out large op returns and we are at the highest level of non monetary data on chain. So that is evidence it doesn’t solve the problem. the incentive to keep bitcoin mostly non monetary is worth the price for bad actors. It’s a Landauer attack on the nodes. This isn’t about segwitt or quantum. It’s about fundamentally what bitcoin is… Is it data storage… or a peer to peer cash system? It cannot be both.

I don’t think I have the attitude here in this conversation…you have a lot to say and I get it and I appreciate you for sharing it with me. I would humbly suggest that we all have to remember…. We have been programmed to believe that which we believe….and hold as our strongest ideals… Maybe….we….should…. Believe instead that which is most aligned with the universal truths. Bitcoin now gives us this ability….we can record for eternity the ideals and values that we wish….however only those ideals/beliefs/systems/institutions that most closely align with universal truths will propagate into the future as a result of the value they provide to society. These values are certain to change over time.

Okay so you are just going to remain ignorant and avoid the issue altogether… interesting. Keep pretending that you are standing up for universal truth! As for me and my node, we will be protecting the chain from illicit material, and fighting to make it sound money.

dont even waste your time with these freaks.... they are doomed to smell their own intellectual farts right unto the Fire.

You can’t have a peer to peer cash system without data storage; it’s not binary, that’s objective. You will store the transactions as a node op, you will store the data. You cannot solve the double spend problem without data storage lol. This is not the avenue to have a grounded and healthy discussion. Yes, this is a Landauer Attack on the protocol/nodes and the source of the attack started in 2017 with SegWit. We are all implicit in spam by supporting SegWit in the current implementation. If you care about the bits on your node, why are discounting the bits that are allowed to be written to your node? (1) 4MB block full of spam is the same amount of data as (4) 1MB pre-Segwit block full of spam or not. The fact is you have 4x increase the chain growth in 1 block of time AND you have discounted the bits such that it costs cheaper on a sat per bit basis to write (1) 4MB segwit block than (4) 1MB pre segwit blocks. Not only does it cost cheaper to spam your node priced in satoshis but it grows 4X faster in size than Satoshi’s original chain. This should be obvious. We broke Satoshi’s constant ratio: 2.1 Quadrillion bits of value competing for 1MB of bitspace. We inflated the protocol constants. We devalued the nodes. If you don’t see SegWit as the Landauer attack, you don’t get it. BIP 110 doesn’t fix this, it fixes a symptom. You will still misprice the bits on your node with 110. This has everything to do with SegWit. Quantum was just my point that we should not take his words as gospel, but we should take his protocol as gospel. “Upgrades” are the attack, full stop. Bug fixes if any are reasonable (obviously). The hubris to believe we are upgrading the protocol, everything has tradeoffs. Bitcoin as originally released was not broken as a concept; SegWit has changed the concept of Bitcoin by distorting the free/fee market of blockspace and the constants Satoshi set in stone. You can’t value your node if you play an active role in warping the cost incentives to write bits to your node. Stop discounting your bits if you hate spam. Don’t allow a 4MB block size if storage growth is a concern. CSAM existed prior to SegWit, it was just way more costly such that the behavior could not be sustained across multiple blocks of time. SegWit was a necessary mistake in the process. All of this was. Every bit added to protocol source code is the Landauer attack. Anything regarding the chain is downstream of protocol. Stop changing the DNA. We seemingly need to revert the bloat in the DNA. Can we preserve LN with 1MB blocks and no Segwit discount?

Ya just muted them lol

🎯

Speaking of Satoshi ...

You can’t hide from the fact by muting me that SegWit has discounted arbitrary bits and your whole movement is to remove arbitrary bits from the chain. You are literally running code that discounts arbitrary bits, which violates the constants of 21M/1MB/1 block and the economical pricing relationship of sats:bits that Satoshi originally set in stone. It’s time for some inward reflection to realize that there is a problem but BIP 110 is not the proper solution.

BIP 110 doesn’t fix SegWit and the arbitrary discounting of bits stored on the node. Speaking of the word arbitrary. SegWit broke the original protocol constants of 21M/1MB/1Block and the economical relationship of sats:bits. We devalued and attacked the nodes starting in 2017; op_return was the last domino. You can’t hate arbitrary data when you arbitrarily discount certain data and have severed yourself from Satoshsi’s original protocol. Let’s agree there is a problem; I’m saying BIP110 is not the proper solution. You still are mispricing the bits of your node and still allowing the chain to grow faster than Satoshi defined. If we are to take his words as gospel, we should take his code and defined constants as gospel too. We need to stop double spending to make Bitcoin fit our individual definitions of “money”.

Also this was said by Hunter Beast who now supports BIP 110 too: "I'm generally supportive of the changes in this BIP. Aside from minor nitpicks in language, the 34 byte scriptPubKey restriction I think will prove to be quite valuable in addressing the larger concern of DoS blocks / poison blocks that impose such high computational costs on nodes that a single block would take 30 minutes to verify on decent hardware instead of taking about a second. This is an even larger threat to Bitcoin than either CSAM or quantum, because I've read that CSAM has already been present on Bitcoin for a very long time, and quantum computers aren't anywhere near good enough to be a threat, and may never be, whereas DoS blocks could be introduced by miners who take direct submissions without sufficient checks at any time."

Yes, I understand. This is still addressing the symptoms and not the root. Blocks are still allowed to grow >1MB per block and we are still arbitrarily discounting some bits over others through the Segwit discounting mechanism. Some arbitrary data can be included AND discounted. This is not what Satoshi gave us, he gave us a finite bitspace that was agnostic in the pricing of bits:sats regardless of where the bit are coming from. He gave us a 1MB limit and we broke that in a sly and around about way. BIP 110 will still need another BIP to address these root issues and the root severance from Satoshi’s original constants that define the economics of the system and value. The attack started in 2017, this should be pretty objective.

Nothing is perfect in the Universe as you know, in reality. We can't have perpetuum mobile due to friction. But we still can have systems that operate with 99.99% efficiency.

Good take. I think we could start with BIP-110 since a lot of people like @Kyma Fi and @BitcoinIsFuture rooting for anti-spam and anti-csam. I’m pretty sure BIP-110 supporters (myself included) will support anti-discount movement. We should use next BIP-110 wisely to further strengthen Bitcoin.

Of course I will support anti-discount movement 👍

To be fair to core supporters… they are hopefully also anti- csam. The problem is that their client is NOT.

Idk about that. Bitcoin in an unbroken state looks like perpetual motion to me. The universe looks like perpetual motion to me. The blocks never stop. I don’t think we can have a grounded argument in how we value our nodes if we arbitrarily discount some bits over others and allow the chain to grow faster than consensus 1MB. SegWit arbitrarily values some bits differently than others and distorts the entire economical relationship between sats:bits:joules. You can’t support BIP 110 because “Landauer Attack” and turn a blind eye on SegWit, that’s a double spend. In terms of the relationship of energy bits and sats, the root source of sin is SegWit. This is objective. We don’t have a proper fee market to curtail bad behavior to begin with because of SegWit, we need to proceed 3-4x the number of blocks to stop the behavior, meaning we need to appended 3-4x the number of bits to the chain per block to stop the behavior, all because of SegWit. Address the root not the symptoms.

It sounds like you are suggesting that someone gets to define what “illicit material” is? This is the core of the discussion isn’t….why do you or I get to decide what that is? It is a slippery slope when someone else gets to start making these decisions for those of us that are sovereign??? Or are we not sovereign? Do we not get to align ourselves with that which we believe is “truth?” I am not saying that what you define as CSAM should be allowed to be propagated into the future on the timechain-rather I am saying that the beauty of the timechain is that anyone who believes anything of value should be recorded on this immutable ledger should be allowed to record that which they want - the market of the future will decide if it retains that value over time. I think there is a distinction there - I could be wrong - I could be right - but it isn’t about that if “sound money” or “immutable communication of value” is what Bitcoin truly represents…???

Common ground 🤝

Bitcoin being Freedom Money should be another common ground and I am sure we have many. for example Bitcoin is THE Global Most Secure Decentralized Unconfiscatable Peer-to-Peer Scarce Hard Sovereign Permissionless Freedom Money, The Greatest Store of Value and The Strongest Hope for Humanity.

Segwit gives bad actors 3 additional MB per block to append poison to the chain and give them a discount in sats to add said poison vs an hosted transacter. Do we have 1MB blocks or not? Why did we change the blocksize implicitly?

@Jack K I’m testing different ideas for post BIP-110. Looking what is best discussion start What better resonates with you and physics? * 1MB block should be hard constraint, same as 21M * Abolish discounts and return to pre SegWit * review Bitcoin through thermodynamic lens I know you are starting with 3rd point as most grounded in physics. I wonder what is best message for everyone else. I assume “no discounts” is a good one building on top of BIP-110. 1MB is what Satoshi said, maybe it’s even stronger message so that we don’t why we are here in a first place.

I suppose there are 3 routes to take here. - We get rid of the discounts and change the block size to 4MB to match what Segwit currently allows. - We get rid of the discounts and change the block size to 1.5MB-2.5MB to equate to what a normal block looks like right now full of just “normal” Segwit transactions. -We get rid of the discounting and stay firm on 1MB block and let the Segwit mistake be a temporary “cancerous” growth to the chain. Ridding of the discount will change the economics of blockspace and we need to be prepared for this. Changing blockspace does too. My vote is the keep the1MB space with the acknowledgement that changing it is equivalent to changing the speed of light. All bits should be agnostic to source and priced 1:1 in sats, no discount. We need to be sure not to break lightning in this change. SegWit discounting is the arbitrary valuation of 1 form of bits vs another. Why? We also need to acknowledge the blocksize was changed in SegWit and discounting has distorted the economic relationship of joules:sats:bits, and changing it again will do the same. I think it’s best to align with what Satoshi gave us and keep lightning. Hard cap at 1MB, all bits equally weighted and priced. The original 1MB blocksize cap is a solution to the spam problem even if op-return was uncapped and removing the discount would make it 3-4x more costly for the same behavior. This would stop the growth 4x immediately and return the intended economics of bits:sats:joules to the original relationship. Segwit destroyed the fee market by inflating blocksize and devalued nodes while pretending it didn’t do any of this. Bitcoin wasn’t broken pre-Segwit, we just didn’t like the economics Bitcoin and reality was imposing on us. We valued scaling over preserving a constant ratio to anchor all dynamics, relationships and economics. 1.9561×10^9 Joules 2,099,999,999,755,528 sats 1MB 1 Block These are the constants satoshi defined in Genesis. We still don’t fully understand the relationship as a collective. I am just one node in the network, I shouldn’t get any more weight than another person. But this is my reasoning when thinking about the protocol (I am not a protocol dev). Curious to hear what others think to gauge my own inputs.

Please note that the more changes the harder it will be to agree on them. For example I will support removing the discount because the discoint is abuse by spam. But I don't think we should change the blocksize any more. It is limited to max 4MB but its dynamic. I am not against for it to be filled to the brim with monetary transactions. And that gives bigger throughput for monetary use. I think in the future when Bitcoin starts being used more and more that will be very helpful. At the moment blocks being half empty is absolutely fine. The block reward is still enough for miners. In fact is was estimated that the spam they mine brings them only 0.7% of their revenue. Fuck spam.

Returning to 1MB per block without SegWit discounting is not a to the protocol change. Defending SegWit as increased blocksize and adding arbitrary bit discounting is a change from Bitcoin (Satoshi’s protocol). I think it’s up to you to defend SegWit in current form regardless of how long it’s been running Returning back the the original constants is true conservatism and is not a protocol change.

For the moment I am just saying that the more things are proposed to change the harder it will be to find consensus. I think for Bitcoin changes must be as minimilistic as possible and as based and well thought out and tested as possible.

So are you *for* this conservatism Jack? Would you like to go back to pre segwit?

Yes. The more I think this through, the more it feels like the only coherent path forward. To me, the Core vs. Knots debate has become a reflection of binary politics. Both sides begin with conclusions and then defend them with a lot of subjectivity. I think Bitcoin deserves something better while acknowledging both parties. Rather than asking what Core wants or what Knots wants, we should ask what the physics of Bitcoin requires. Nick and I have converged on this direction after talking about it, and others are beginning to arrive at the same conclusion through the mathematics. Lightning does not require witness discounting or an implicit increase in block size. The mistake in SegWit was not transaction malleability fixes or enabling second-layer protocols. The mistake was altering the economics of blockspace by discounting one class of permanent memory relative to another. In doing so, we departed from the constants Satoshi established at Genesis. We are no longer mining blocks with the same conserved symmetry that defined the original protocol. We have changed Bitcoin’s “speed of light” (speed of memory). If every permanently stored bit imposes the same physical burden on every node forever, then every bit should compete under the same economic rules. That is the conservation law Bitcoin originally satisfied. SegWit broke that symmetry. I believe restoring those original block economics would resolve much of what we now call the “spam problem.” It would dramatically reduce the amount of discounted space available for abuse while forcing every participant to pay the same price for the same permanent burden placed upon the network. Whether additional policy limits are desirable becomes a separate discussion. The first step is restoring the conservation law. As we investigate the mathematics and the physics we can see Bitcoin has operated for nearly nine years under a distorted economic geometry. Over two halvings, we have fundamentally changed the relationship between a fixed supply of 21 million BTC and a finite supply of blockspace. We expanded the effective memory surface while simultaneously assigning unequal prices to equal physical bits. The original protocol satisfied two simple conservation principles: 1 sat = 1 sat 1 bit = 1 bit The first still holds. The second no longer does. Bitcoin’s fee market is fundamentally an exchange between sats and bits. Satoshis bid for permanent memory. When we discounted witness data, we devalued one class of bits relative to another and broke the economic equivalence between identical physical memory. In distorting the bits we also distorted the sats since the relationship of energy/value, information and time are what’s fundamental. Recovering 1 bit = 1 bit conservation is just as fundamental as 1 sat = 1 sat

I guess the real hard pill to swallow is that everyone's perception that we won the blocksize war is actually false. The same way that these United States didn't survive the Civil War, they became THE United States.

GM 🫡

While I agree about clear messaging to find social consensus, really this strikes at the root of the problem versus treating symptoms.

This is an incredibly interesting point. Thank you for your thoughts that you contribute to this space.

🙏🧡

“If every permanently stored bit imposes the same physical burden on every node forever, then every bit should compete under the same economic rules.” 💯❤️‍🔥🔥

It’s incredibly arrogant that you would rather revert bitcoin to a previous state without lightning than admit you are wrong about core. This is not politics. This is simply a defense of Bitcoin as a decentralized monetary system. There is no legitimate hard fork being proposed. It’s nothing like the block wars. Core has zero counterpoints, and there is no URSF. RDTS, is a temporary soft fork with a fast growing base of nodes (more than BIP 148 had at its activation), mined blocks and an implementation that doesn’t effect Bitcoin as money. What isn’t legitimate is CORE. Nothing they did in the last two years that was helpful to Bitcoin… it’s pure malware, serving only the interests of getting more funding, no matter the source and by any means necessary: Core deleted wallets. They exposed IP. They received funding from Epstien through MIT media lab and Adam back went to the island… then they hired incompetent devs, who ignorantly made these radical changes to Bitcoin like op return blow out and flooded the chain with a stablecoin scam, runes, ordinals and even memecoins- not just “spam”. This wasn’t enough for them. After that they sought to protect their dying reputation and funding with absolute lies concerning the alternative client. Claiming RDTS was contentious and irresponsible. They claimed it did things it didn’t, because the truth would lose their credibility as a dominant client. The truth is Core is contentious and harmful to the network, not knots. Core is captured by corporations and are an enemy to Bitcoin. Full stop. Anyone defending them at this point is either ignorant or a fraud. What’s even worse is your proposal to avoid this issue by going back to pre segwitt. A pre segwitt BTC would disable lightning (bip110 preserves this). Lighting was the mechanism that made bitcoin a more scalable medium of exchange and what made Bitcoin one of the fastest payment systems on earth. Hell, it’s the reason this app exists. BIP 110 doesn’t change this… your proposal does, for no other reason than to avoid the possibility that Core is comprised… You are so terrified of what the Core supporters think, and wishing to remain in their inner group, that you have to run logical circles to defend alternatives. It’s making you look like a fool, when you have actually really great ideas outside of this issue. I suggest you take other look at RDTS and what Core is really doing then ask yourself: Is bitcoin decentralized money? Or should it be a data storage system controlled by a bunch of centralized node servers? … because that’s where we are headed without RDTS.

We did win. We got lighting. You use it on this app. BCH has to have a bot farm to con people into using BCH nostr…. On BTC nostr protocols lol

I don't know if you realize that you can still have lightning without having a 4MBs of block weight space. And to carry the analogy further, you are kind of making my point. In the Civil War, THE United States abolished slavery, (got lightning) but at the cost of a federated union.(a fixed bit correct block limit.) The thing we are talking about is more nuanced than "Got Lightning".

You are ascribing a lot of unstated motives here.

My point is BTC solved the issues of scaling with consensus and innovation… BCH failed to solve it with narrative and trusting a few influencers. The civil war was BCH vs BSV lol. Bitcoin doesn’t have “wars”. It moves based on whatever is agreed on by the nodes. You are seeing debates in the community as how Bitcoin functions… that’s not how actual protocol consensus is reached. It’s just noise.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but you are definitely not a second order thinker. No one is arguing what you're straw manning here. And a majority of the people in this thread are highly technical. I'm not saying that BTC didn't "win" over BCH. I am saying the second order effects of winning caused us to lose in the long term, creating unintended consequences that have knock-on effects that I'm not sure that we can escape from. No one here is talking about getting rid of lightning. No one thinks that there was a literal war where guns were shot.

“I guess the real hard pill to swallow is that everyone's perception that we won the blocksize war is actually false.” Which is it then? You think bitcoin is dead or you going to take back your ridiculous analogy?

The way you think is utterly confounding to me. If you kill your enemy in war, but you're forever bound to a wheelchair afterward, would you say you won the war? Technically, yes. But the cost is so much, one might say, you lost something more valuable. Also, by cutting off the second paragraph of my note, you betray how you are trying to misconstrue what I've said. In the U.S. Civil War, there used to be a confederation of states that had their own rights. When half of those states had a war with the other half, the result was the confederation of states no longer existed. It was a solidified union that was one entity instead of a bunch of states federated together. together. The Federation is what gave these United States their identity and differentiation from the rest of the world, which is why they were so exceptional. While the state still existed after the war, they were never the same. This is my analogy for the blocksize war in Bitcoin. You may choose not to believe that or think somehow Bitcoin is in a better state than it was prior to the SegWit activation. That's your prerogative. I think that BIP110 treats the symptoms of the problem and not the root cause. In my estimation, Bitcoin needs three separate things: 1. A defined specification for consensus. 2. A modular code base to allow different relay policies, and gossip networks, while still adhering to the same consensus spec. 3. The removal of the witness discount and possibly a refactoring of the weight unit system of blocksize measurement.

Lol that’s actually not what I said at all. I said remove the Segwit discount and reinstate the blocksize limit at 1MB. Restore the pre-Segwit block constants/economics/ratios, keep LN. I said nothing of removing lightning, that is your interpretation and projection.

💯

Good point, no more discounts

You can get lightning with 1MB blocks, 4MB is a problem

No one talks about reverting lightning, just remove witness discount, it’s fiat

Okay sure… it wouldn’t remove lightning but it would kill nostr because it would make it incredibly expensive to send zaps. lol

It won’t change any of this. It’s independent of lightning protocol. What is your logic on zaps being expensive?

SegWit data is far from arbitrary; it is foundational to the Lightning Network’s ability to facilitate fast, low-cost, off-chain transactions. And the 1MB block limit was to prevent spam attacks early on in the network development. It wasn’t a hard cap like the supply. That makes no sense to sacrifice the mechanism which allows it to be a medium of exchange for no reason at all. Segwitt bits don’t cause the chain bloat and aren’t arbitrary. Unless you think sending zaps, or making payments on lighting is arbitrary lol

The pricing is arbitrary. Why not 1/10? 1/1000? 1/2? Why 1/4? Why not 1/1 when the physical bits cost the same to store? The only moral answer in regards to the economics of energy is 1=1. But hey, now we can stuff spam in witness data for 1/4 of the cost and grow the chain memory up to 4x faster. Why are you afraid/reluctant for lightning tx bits to pay 1:1 the real physical cost they induce? Lightning won’t work if we don’t tax the nodes to pay via increased storage requirements? Why won’t a 1MB block size prevent spam now? Why won’t increasing the cost 4x to write spam prevent it now? Returning the blocksize to its original limit and reducing the SegWit discount does not sacrifice the mechanism of lightning, it accurately prices reality such that economic actors can make knowledgeable decisions from real price. I hope you realize you are trying to defend arbitrary price controls of a specific good/service within Bitcoin.

There’s a list of downstream effects of removing the Segwitt discount. It causes more harm to BTC as money and solves nothing…

We've already described what it solves and the harm is actually not that large at all. It's paying for the block space that you're using. I mean, if we're just going to misrepresent each other's positions, I'll just say that you love spam because you want it at a discount. And no matter how you reply, I'll just repeat that as if you haven't said anything.

“we should ask what the physics of Bitcoin requires” we need the “why” i think “what’s” have taken us as far as they can

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.

The change in block size or “velocity of information” on Bitcoin is done through node consensus… that’s what makes it decentralized and secure. That’s literally what eliminates a need for a third party. By invoking a 'God' or an abstract, pre-ordained authority to define these constants, you are actually arguing for a the worst form of centralization in physics and bitcoin simultaneously. You're treating the universe like a centralized server where the laws are 'defined' by an admin. That isn't how physics works, and it certainly isn't how Bitcoin works. We don't need a cosmic 'God' to define constants, just as we don't need a central bank to define value. Both are emergent, bottom-up phenomena. If you believe the universe requires a Lawgiver, you are admitting that you prefer a centralized architecture for reality.

The universe has defined constants (fact) that have not changed for a reason (conservation). Go and change them from within, please. I never said God was centralized, that is your interpretation. What is a body? Yes, today’s blocksize is different thru consensus, we have the ability to change it (just like 21M), it does not mean that we should. If you follow the physics/logic you should realize you can’t conserve/preserve value if you do. The only question is how long will it take for you to realize changing the blocksize was a mistake and we are all apart of the problem? I prefer decentralized law where constants are determined by initial fiat and understood by consensus to not change them for the sake of conservation and the logic of the system. Whether you’d like to believe it or not, predefined constants are the rule of everything. All I see is a singular chain of authority and time written from a decentralized body expressing the P2P exchange of value across all chains of time.

hmmm. I think there a distinction in the two: the meaning of “what happens” is only intelligible within a context of purpose. where as “why speed of light is constant” doesn’t require a purpose to answer or phrased differently, i think the outputs of those questions belong to different categories. would have to think more on that, very interesting stuff needless to say

The purpose of any constant is to preserve a relationship. The purpose of a constant speed of light is to preserve the relationship of the information written (memory/distance) per unit of time. Said constant then defines the relationship of energy and mass by the square of velocity. When we begin to map physics onto bitcoin and vice versa, these constants are fundamental to preserving the integrity of the emergent system. The fee market for example defines the free market exchange in sats for bits. By inflating blockspace you inflate the relationship of sats:bits per unit time and inflation the relationship between energy and information. If the system is about preserving proved work through physical memory and confined mathematical value, we are doing a god awful job at understanding how conservation must work logically. The whole point of blockspace is to define the relationship between energy conserved thru 21M, information conserved thru a bounded bitspace (1MB) and the expressed temperature (fees) per block of time. This is expressed thru the relationship of energy and entropy. Segwit not only increased the blocksize but assigned 2 different Satoshi values per bit depending on the arbitrary classification of said bit, despite all physical bits being equal. 1≠1 the most fundamental axiom of logic. The purpose of Bitcoin is to conserve value (energy/information/time) and the purpose of the universe is to do the same. The are maps of eachother perceived from the internal and the external boundaries of time. In the universe we have incomplete information (active state of energy/matter only) where bitcoin we have access to total state. Now maybe we can start asking what is money? What have we done to Bitcoin by changing said constants and breaking 1=1? Why did we do it?