Bitcoin or BIPcoin?

What is Nakamoto Consensus?

If bits have energy as shown, they have a mass equivalence too. A chain split of call it ~20% of the nodes, or 20% of the bits diverge, we will see 20% of the mass of bitcoin diverge. This means that there are two representations of time/gravity competing for truth. Low temperature (fee) blocks do not add as much work as high fee blocks. Nobody knows the future, but I see almost nobody is thinking this way. Guys there’s a lot of risk here if we misunderstand the physics. I may be completely wrong, but just my perspective. Can anyone else verify?

If all satoshis are backed by provable work to trigger their subsidy and the ownership of a large majority said sats is backed by debt/printed money (no provable work), what should we expect to happen in a world where energy must be conserved? IMO the answer is both NGU and NGD. Hodling both fiat debt and Bitcoin is a double-spend in the eyes of energy.

For those who don’t quite understand the physics of a Bitcoin fork. A centralized chain with 1 node has x bits (total chain memory); and y mass (sum up joules per bit and convert via E=mc^2). A decentralized chain with 10,000 nodes has the same x bits (total) chain memory on each node; but it has 10,000*y mass. The chain has 10,000 times the mass of a centralized chain since each node is running an identical copy of the bits which are all physical bits. ALL BITS ARE PHYSICAL. All bits are synchronous. sýn (“together, with”) + khrónos (“time”). synchronous = “together in time” So, a forked chain that has ~20% of the nodes diverging in history has lost 20% of the mass, thus 20% of the energy in what is physically being preserved. A physical divergence in energy. 2 competing chains that are fractional masses of what once was one cohesive chain. Bearish until full unity (unlikely). Down we go. Fiat has no logic here. A chain with fiat backed coins via debt will eventually respond to a falling fiat price. Nodes are physical matter; and they do matter. You should listen to their concerns, especially when they are offering you socialized block space by transferring fees from sats to bits via inflating blockspace and arbitrary discounting of identical physical bits from protocol fiat. Are we going to look at the physics or not? My two sats; too bad they are worth-less.

Since fiat cannot conserve energy, there is zero intelligibility, knowledge or wisdom be found in viewing Bitcoin through the fiat lens of price. There is only deterministic deception. Due to this, I hypothesize that Bitcoin will vibrate directionally between 0/1; $0/$∞ with compression of time between the wavelengths. I don’t mean this in the absolute sense of amplitude, but in the directional sense. The bit always flips, that’s the rule. Change. I expect volatile bit flips in compressed time. This is how superposed chains of memory and potential truths get resolved across all spectrums of reality. Vol is here 🫡

Just hypothesizing/thinking aloud here. It would seem that most of the influencers and minds of the core Bitcoin space are unwilling to look at the phsycis of Bitcoin. They love to talk how it’s backed by energy, but refuse to look at the quantized energy/entropy Bitcoin measures at the quantized block level of time using thermo/physics, despite some of them being physicists (lol). We cannot move forward using fiat for reference. *If* the core chain is truly captured as many of the BIP110 people claim, we should expect to see quantum sigs role into Bitcoin very soon as the AI attacks continue to breach low entropy memory and the narrative ramps up. Personally, CC breach was the signpost of “Q-Day” in my eyes, but AoT release was the real one. A URSF for quantum sigs feels like a low probability feat now. One more large breach and the fear could consume the network. On the flip side of the physics, a proof of work change is non-negotiable. AoT logically points to safety by defining entropy logically in the Bitcoin Lens; no quantum threat, AI mitigated via knowledge of entropy in both bits and joules. Bitcoin is the measurement, and you cannot have an invariant objective measure by arbitrarily redefining the work, the constants and their temporal relationships wrt supply and emergent user behavior. A standard is a standard for a logical reason. It’s like changing the meaning of 1’ and expecting to remain in consensus with all people who used 1’ before the change. IMO, best to hibernate for the 2016 adjustment *if* you believe 110 is the proper chain. The phsycis stands, Bitcoin is and always will be the answer. I am currently doing my own research and experiments to see if an alternative consensus valid path is available. I’ll let you know if I manage to verify a possibility. In the spirit of Satoshi, all work must be verified. There are some parts of my own work/life that need additional verification and attention. Do not let fiat be the number to verify and guide your logic, you might one day find yourself lost as I have. I too bought the lie that debt was good if it meant I “owned” some Bitcoin. Stay safe out there, the energy has forked into 2. Until resolution, expect the unexpected.

Agreement ≠ Consensus

What is the website that shows the version number of bitcoin nodes in the network that are actively running?

Superposed entropy must be understood 👀

To the BIP110ers who are demoralized. A proof of work change is not the answer. That will be the ultimate death by deception. Find another consensus valid path.