It looks like primal just doesn't work for me. please check my notes on ditto.pub

One critical rule we are missing is 75% discount on fee bits. We are not pricing bits fairly. The price is paid by nodes instead of paying price at the transaction time. Censorship discussion misleading. We should talk more about fee market and how witness discount is destroying it.

Let me draw your attention to the fact that we don't even have fair fees since SegWit. Instead we have witness discount of 75% on witness bits so it's extremely cheap to buy such bits. And then we are surprised why fee market can't outprice spammers. It's because fee market is rigged in spammers favor. The price of forever bits storage is paid by nodes. Until we restore flat fee prices for all kinds of bits we will have a lot of issues with spam.

quite powerful take that witness discount is socialism, hopefully it resonates with people

I have a few reflections and curious to hear your take. 1. On "UTXO creation should be relatively expensive and UTXO consumption should be relatively cheap": The witness discount doesn't accomplish this. It makes witness bytes cheap in the fee market regardless of whether the transaction is creating UTXOs or consuming UTXOs. A transaction that creates 20 outputs from 1 input still gets the discount on its witness data. The discount isn't targeted at UTXO economics. It's a blanket subsidy on a byte type. 2. On "So consuming a UTXO still costs more than creating one, but the difference is much smaller": This isn't evidence the discount is working as intended. It's a side effect of blanket-witness-discounting. The discount doesn't distinguish between a consolidation transaction and an inscription. Both get the same discount on their witness data. The "desirable" asymmetry is accidental, not designed. 2. On "Without the witness discount, that same input would be roughly 148 bytes versus 31 bytes... That would give users a fairly strong incentive to create lots of outputs because creation looks cheap": This inverts the problem. Pre-SegWit, 148 bytes for an input vs 31 bytes for an output means spending was already more expensive than creating. But that reflects reality UTXOs are persistent state, signatures are not. The fee market should price bytes by their persistence cost. The pre-SegWit ratio already does that. The witness discount didn't fix an incentive problem. It introduced a pricing distortion. 3. On "With the discount, the ratio is closer to 68 vB input : 31 vB output": A witness byte costs a quarter of a non-witness byte in vbytes but the same in disk, in RAM, in bandwidth, and in validation. The discount is applied to the price signal. It is not applied to the object. 4. On "The witness discount helps enormously here because most of the bulky part of each input the authorization data is discounted": Correct. But "helps enormously" is doing a lot of work. The discount also helps enormously with inscription bloat. You're selecting the beneficial use case and ignoring the harmful one. The same mechanism that makes consolidation cheap makes it cheap to stuff data into the witness at a quarter of its persistence cost. 5. On "Those twenty outputs receive no witness discount... So the weight system implicitly taxes UTXO proliferation more heavily": Three problems. One - the outputs are non-witness data; they were always priced at 4 WU/byte, before and after SegWit. There's no "additional tax" from the discount. Outputs simply don't benefit from it. Two - you're ignoring that the discount also makes it cheap to create new witness data that persists on disk. An inscription with 1 input and 1 output benefits from the discount on its witness while adding permanent bytes to the chain. Three - the "implicit tax" framing assumes the goal is to discourage UTXO creation. But the real goal should be byte identity: every byte priced equally. The discount doesn't tax UTXOs - it subsidizes witness bytes, which happens to create a minor asymmetry between inputs and outputs. Happy to hear your take on my review! Interested to hear your guys takes too.

The issue is not Core vs Knots. It's witness discount and people paying 25% for the real price of bits

You can write anything to the block, that's right. What would you say about 75% witness discount though? It's fiat thinking in plain sight. As long as everyone can pay their fare price on a fee market future will settle other debates.

We need a third way. Core uncapping for more data is a real danger because of witness discount. People are paying 25% of the real price for their bits and receiving 75% discount. How is that fair? Knots BIP-110 is a shot but probably at the wrong target. It's not censoring if we all agree on cap sizes. Questions becomes - what is reasonable size? Both options missing the point that SegWit change blocksize from 1MB to 4MB and added 75% discount for witness data. Now we have bits in the same block which costs different prices. It's a monetary policy inside bitcoin. It's blocksize printing. It's fiat thinking. We are fighting the wrong war. The problem is use wanting to pay less now to move the forever burden on the node runners. Irony is that miners are losing 75% on witness data at the fee market and still voting for this! It's crazy. Imagine voluntarily subsidising your own demise. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Core vs Knots is the battle in the war we are losing to ourselves. We need more people to take this seriously. We need more people to have "Holy F*ck!" moment. Bitcoin community started with the right ideal but quickly forgot we are just people. We make mistakes. Segwit was a huuuuuuge mistake. A lot to write but at the very least let's pick the right battles. Round.

Blocksize of 1MB is the ultimate scarcity, same as 21M Bitcoin. Why did we inflate it to 4MB? It's QE, blocksize printing and fiat thinking!

are you saying you don't want to pay fair price? and rather take 75%? this is fiat thinking

Do you guys know any cosmologist who can help with the research on ledgered universe? The structural claim is this: dark matter may be a bookkeeping phenomenon — information that is real but excluded from the primary observation channel. It appears in any ledgered system that permits information to be committed without being fully registered. The WIMP and axion searches test whether dark matter is also a particle. If they succeed, dark matter will be both a particle and a bookkeeping phenomenon — just as a Taproot output is both a public key (visible) and a MAST tree (hidden). The two descriptions are not in conflict. They are complementary accounts of the same object at different levels of observability. https://.nsite.run/ledgered-universe.html