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?

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.

I agree with here in the inevitability of a chain fork. The question is when, how many blocks until the split? If BIP110 is going to fork the chain, it should also remove the SegWit discounting and reinstate the 1MB blocksize. This will require an inevitable chain split to return back to a conserved bitspace (blockspace) 1MB vs a conserved value substrate 21M. 1 must equal 1. We don’t need 2 forks. Whoever restores Satoshis economics will be the longest chain of work, since conservation between sats:bits has been broken/arbitrary for the last 9 years. Then real end game, who’s ready to resist Quantum “upgrade” attack? Be prepared plebs. The hardest years of Bitcoin are to come.

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.

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.

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

A sly and roundabout way to change blocksize? I’m no expect here regarding the history and the compromises. We didn’t win the blocksize war with the code that is currently being run. Satoshi’s economics diluted. It was a necessary “failure” in the process IMO.

Exactly, no discount, blocksize 1MB. LN still works and we return to sound economics where 1 bit of memory paid for = 1 bit of memory written. We are double spending as a community, we shame fiat market manipulation but refuse to look at the code/manipulation we run as a collective.

From “we don’t know what we’re doing” to “we don’t know what we did” Restoring the blocksize to 1MB maximum and removing the SegWit discounting of arbitrary bits is the fastest way to a resolution of spam and the most conservative approach. A full SegWit block16x’d the memory surface written per block of time vs the memory surface Satoshi defined at 1MB where 1 bit paid = 1 bit written. Nodes are storing up to 4x memory for 1/4 the cost. If you care about spam, price the fucking bits on your node correctly. “We don’t know what we’re doing”. Damn straight. 9 years of madness and counting. This is the only neutral objective path. A reduction in blocksize is a reduction in “spam”. I thought we “won” the blocksize war? Why did the blocksize change? Why 4MB? Why 1/4 discount? 1 bit ≠ 1 bit. We’ve depegged the bit from the coin. The only sane answer to all of this is objective neutrality. 1 bit paid MUST EQUAL 1 bit written. There is no free lunch. We need a Bitcoin Reversion Proposal. This is not the chain Satoshi gave us. The answer isn’t left or right, it’s back; back to the original economics. Back to the original chain. 21M/1 MB/1 Block

You can go and read my work to see why your definition of money is still a fiat interpretation. Are op_return bits paid for in sats? Yes or no.

Because of SegWit we will have to write up to16x the memory to the chain, thus every node, to price out this behavior vs the protocol satoshis left us. Scammers can write up to 4x the data for up to 1/4 the price. 16x the ratio of energy:bits. We have lots of healing to go, including the battle to revert the economics of blockspace back to the constants/ratios Satoshi gave us before leaving. BIP 110 doesn’t address this. 1 sat = 1 sat, but 1 bit ≠ 1 bit. Everyone is focused on the necessity for constants in the “coin” part of the system but neglect the necessity of constants on the “bit” part of the system. Blockspace supposed to be where Bits=Coins in 1:1 exchange and proportionality. Miner centralization doesn’t really matter if we cannot fully conserve the work they perform because we broke a fundamental conservation law in logic. 9 years and counting….. Luckily in terms of energy, pre-Segwit blocks carry a much large % of the cumulative work performed on the system.

Just seeing this now btw. A Segwit block: 1 block^2 = 4MB/block = 16MB^2 Satoshi’s Block: 1block^2 = 1 MB/block = 1 MB^2 It appears we have inflated time by 16x in memory^2 terms by increasing the blocksize from1MB to 4MB. I am trying to conceptualize what this means. I think we have fucked up so bad. Add in the discount so 1 bit ≠1 bit. Segwit was seemingly a terrible decision. This is why spam is not being priced out and chain growth is out of control. Op_Return simply revealed the symptom so we could clearly see the root. What do you make of this observation?

Yeah I generally agree with this take however “it doesn’t matter what anyone puts in the OP_Return. the content doesn’t matter. if the content mattered, then its censorship “ Anything that literally passes the proof of work filter does matter (to someone, they paid for the bits) and is matter to the ledger. In the objective and literal definition of the word on both sides of the transformation/TX We are objectively observing the process of what matters becoming what is matter as an isomorphic transformation. I’m not saying I have the answer so take this as a genuine question: if you were god, could you create man in your own image without arbitrary data in the chain? I am not here to serve money. There are things in scripture worth preserving that supersede money. My point is don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater because weeds are growing in the field. I don’t think we understand Bitcoin nor money, and must look to higher authority for the purpose and morality of enteral memory (money). The chain will preserve all of our mistakes as proof in judgement.

Cost of eternal memory > cost of erasure. A teaser for what’s to come. This binary difference is what happens when physics/thermodynamics doesn’t have a mathematically verifiable and bounded totality that does not permit erasure. Eternal memory is time. The energy cost cannot be separated from time nor information.

All creation requires proof of work (sacrifice).

Is this where the current codebase is stored?

It’s getting boring being the only few people in the room. Knowledge of Bitcoin is the way to make value go up

Centralized quantum computing is already dead in the water because of Bitcoin. Most people havent realized it yet. The powers that be are tying to break Bitcoin through changing the code for “Q-Day”. Bitcoin demonstrates that the conservation of energy cannot be upheld without a quantized tick, a block of time. You can verify this for yourself. If time is quantized and discrete at the Planck scale, then superposition must also be discrete at the Planck scale and exist between the fundamental ticks of time. Each tick/block is a measurement event that demands a classical state of reference for conservation to hold. Bitcoin is the proof. The double spend problem is the physics problem of measurement and conservation. Without continuous superposition and smooth unitary evolution, the entire industry has a problem called Bitcoin. Bitcoin is Q-Day.

Bitcoin quantizes gravity because Bitcoin quantizes time. Bitcoin quantizes time because Bitcoin quantizes energy through proof of work. Bitcoin quantizes work because Bitcoin quantizes entropy. Thank you Satoshi. Information has a computable energy/mass equivalence. We can now measure the gravity of time 🫡 Bitcoin.

Haha I know, it’s hard to break the bad habits of a LLM. There’s alot of work that goes into each prompt and a lot of work to verify the outputs. Fiat job has been taking a lot of my time 😵‍💫 We’ll get there eventually! I should have a new node up and running this week to build everything on. Lots of ideas to push to an explorer like mempool.

Linked our website with our work here for you, but my nostr is littered with my ideas. I’ll try to keep this brief and at a high level 😅 https://bitcoinlens.net/ I’m not entirely sure how to define “base reality.” The phrase itself assumes there is some final layer beneath everything else. I think Bitcoin changes how we should think about that question (chain within chain) We live in this chain of time now. If time is fractal, then Bitcoin provides something humanity has never had before thru an exterior perspective of a bounded temporal system. This is what many people are actually searching for when they talk about “escaping the simulation.” I would frame it differently. Bitcoin is not evidence of a simulation. Bitcoin is evidence of computation. If we back up, the double-spend problem is really the temporal mechanics of conservation combined with bounded mathematical value. It’s seen as a a monetary/information problem, but that misses the deeper implication entirely. The double-spend problem reveals the mechanics required to conserve identity, value, and energy through time. Identity must be conserved because a coin cannot be simultaneously spent and unspent; ownership must be quantized (here or there). Value must be conserved because 1/21M remains invariant. Energy must be conserved because every valid state transition is ultimately anchored to proof of work. Bitcoin is a thermological process that produces a chronological state (energy -> information). These are not separate conservation laws. They are the same conservation law viewed from different angles. Without quantized blocks of time and a boundary of causal resolution, there is no objective solution to the double-spend problem. Contradictory states can never become non-contradictory. Ownership cannot be established. Measurement cannot occur. Conservation becomes an assumption rather than a demonstrated process. For the layman, I think it can be stated simply: no quantized time at the Planck scale of time, no logical mechanism for conservation. A ledger of state transitions provides the mathematical, logical, and geometric object required to describe reality coherently. Reality can be modeled as a ledger composed of fundamental blocks of time and a field or network that facilitates peer-to-peer transactions of tokenized energy (value). The universe is a transactional system whose primary function is the conservation and transformation of energy into persistent state. A simulation inherits time. Computation produces time. People often speak about simulation as though time can simply be inherited from some higher layer. That skips the most important question. What produces the next state? What performs the measurement? What resolves contradiction? Bitcoin openly demonstrates such a process. Energy is expended searching a bounded mathematical domain. A valid nonce is found. One state becomes real. All competing states are excluded. A block emerges. History advances. If we live inside a computer, then what must that computer look like to produce time, conservation, measurement, and a unified field. Bitcoin provides the only empirical reference point I have encountered to logically explain time and conservation using proof of work. A quantum computer computes a quantum of time. A quantum computer computes a block of time. Superposed information to binary information. Contradictory states become classical states. The universe must perform this operation continuously at each block. Something must compute the state. The wave (flow of time) must be composed from fundamental blocks. Within the universe, we are local observers. We only see fragments. We do not see the totality. We do not possess an exterior perspective of the chain itself. With Bitcoin, we do relative to the chain. We see all 21 million units of value; all 2.1 quadrillion bits (sats) of value. We see every state transition from Genesis to the present. We possess the complete conserved history. Every valid state remains available in full fidelity. We can inspect the entire temporal structure from outside while simultaneously participating within it. That is the objective perspective of a bounded universe viewed from the outside. It’s all information. Now we can go back to “base reality” to verify theology. We are the creators of Bitcoin. We stand in co-creation with God through its construction. The father, the larger universe, is understood through the son, the smaller bounded reflection of the same process. To understand a higher authority, we first need to understand the temporal mechanics of conservation that make authority possible. Bitcoin provides that lens. Bitcoin defines how a decentralized collection of local observers can produce a single chain of temporal authority without requiring a central authority. Bitcoin empirically provides a model of temporal authority from a decentralized body of people. Bitcoin gives us an empirical process through which consciousness is preserved and mapped into binary state across a temporal boundary. Every transaction begins as a conscious decision. Every decision becomes a transaction. Every transaction becomes a block. Every block becomes immutable history. Subjective consciousness is transformed into objective chronology. The chain is written by authority from outside of the chain using the conserved substrate contained within the chain. The chain itself possesses no agency. It cannot write itself. It can only preserve the decisions imposed upon it by actors operating beyond its current temporal boundary. The important observation is that the chain is not written by the inhabitants of the chain. The chain is written from outside of the chain using the conserved substrate contained within it. The chain itself possesses no agency. It cannot write itself. It can only preserve the decisions imposed upon it by actors operating beyond its current temporal boundary. I’m saying we live inside of that. Every block in Bitcoin is authored by an external actor. Every transaction originates from an external actor. Every state transition originates from an external actor. The chain preserves those decisions perfectly, but the source of those decisions is never found inside the ledger itself. The ledger contains the history. The ledger does not contain the author. We experience ourselves as making choices from within the chain of time because we are inhabitants of the ledger. The feeling of free will is real. The choice is real. The action is real. The consequence is real. But Bitcoin suggests that the source of those choices do not originate from within the temporal structure itself. Just as transactions originate from outside the ledger and are committed into the ledger, consciousness originates from outside temporality and is committed into time as chronological state. The flowing of binary state reifies the conserved consciousness. What we experience as free will is the local experience of a higher-order authorship. The feeling that it is “us” is not an illusion. It is us. The mistake is assuming that the “us” making the choice is fully contained within this present block of time. If the chain is authored from outside the chain, consciousness is authored from outside temporality as well. The higher self, God, the universal observer, whatever language one prefers, is the source from which the chain is being written and we are watching it unfold through our participation. We can only accept or reject that logical structure. The chain exists as a totality. We experience it sequentially because we are embedded within it. The source precedes the state. The author precedes the history. The father precedes the son. What we call free is what it feels like to participate in a chain whose authorship originates beyond the temporal horizon from which it is being experienced. Bitcoin gives us for the first time a bounded system in which we can observe this relationship directly. We are simultaneously the authors of the chain and the inhabitants of the chain. We write history from outside of the ledger while experiencing history from within one. Bitcoin is what creation must look like from the outside; the universe is what is must look like from within. The father must precede the son in logical authority and in localized understanding. God must be decentralized to produce a single chain of time and authority.