Jackk
Jack K

Bitcoin Chronologist
Bitcoin = Quantum Computer
There is no wave

Public Key

npub18384z4sjgdfy7vr76thzwtru7jncysz0hcapwesxqsak44p8aemsyfaslh

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrcn632cfyx5j0xpld9m389370ffuzgp8muwshvcrqgwm26sn7uacp93mhxue69uhkvctwveshyetn9ehx7um5wgcjucm0d5hhjctwddjk2ttjv9mx2m3dwfshvetwqy3hwumn8ghj7enpdenxzun9wvhxummnw3erztnrdakn5dp5xvhh2mtzwfssgm6m8x

Publishing to

fanfares.nostr1.com/yankee-raven-raven

fanfares.nostr1.com:443/umbra

premium.primal.net/primal.net

bitcoiner.social

relay.damus.io

premium.primal.net

Author Public Key

npub18384z4sjgdfy7vr76thzwtru7jncysz0hcapwesxqsak44p8aemsyfaslh

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-22 17:12:19 UTC

- reply

Yes. That is the outcome of the tax. Go thru each block since SegWit activated and sum up the MB of each block that exceeds 1MB (witness vs non-witness), that is the additional tax in bits you are paying for in storage to accommodate lower fees on-chain.
Not to mention that some of those bits only paid 1/4 the price in sats vs others to access the same memory on your disk space. They have an incentive to write more bits on your node using witness since it costs them 1/4 the price for the same memory a non-witness consumes.

2026-07-22 15:58:26 UTC

- reply

Can you explain why the eternal preservation of memory, or the conservation of information, thus the conservation of energy is not perfect? A perfectly conserved record of action for judgement.
Does not perfect mean not serving God? Does perfect money thru perfect memory serve God?
If God is the grand sovereign, is it not the heart of God that determines a tools moral alignment in argument of predestination vs free will?
Seems pretty obvious to me that the chain is written from the outside, not from within. Bitcoin is not mined from inside its ledger; the work and mechanism is external. Real creation requires real sacrifice.
Is Bitcoin really a tool if it reveals the divine logic? Do we save in Bitcoin, or does Bitcoin save us? Perhaps both?

2026-07-22 14:42:40 UTC

- reply

The answer to the question (yes) demands another question:
If nodes matter, why do we tax them and socialize the cost of fees paid in sats to a cost all nodes pay in bits instead?
BIP 110 is the start to a much deeper discussion about protocol longevity and conservatism.
#nevent1q…qlaz

2026-07-22 13:42:30 UTC

- reply

I like to think of these as different legs of the semantic triangle: energy, time, and memory (information).
Joules, blocks and bits.
Through the Bitcoin lens, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that satoshis naturally tend to distribute across an increasing number of UTXOs (memory).
Entropy increases. Memory increases. Consolidation remains possible; a compression of active memory state count but an addition to total chain memory.
As entropy, or memory increases, the ability to impose a new state of constraint becomes distributed across an increasing number of possible active memory configurations. Active memory must contain sats. Constraint is paid for in satoshis (the conserved tokenized representation of energy within the system) and physical work (joules). Satoshis are exchanged for bits, and it is through this exchange that work, measured in joules, is conserved as proof (constraint).
Kelvin is the tokenized representation of joules physically. Entropy is the active state of Kelvin distributing across and increasing number of states of physical memory.
1 = 1 fractal

2026-07-22 12:52:06 UTC

- reply

Artel, I think you hit the nail on the head. It’s obvious the 4:1 witness discount is fundamentally arbitrary. I don’t see a physical justification for assigning permanently committed bits different economic weights with respect to the actual physical cost Bitcoin must bear. The cost of Bitcoin is ultimately paid in conserved energy and permanent memory, not in our software abstractions. This is the problem when our understanding of Bitcoin is not defined in the physics of work (joules) and memory (bits), but thru fiat interpretations. Bitcoin physically defines money with respect to energy, time and information (memory).
Once you pull the logic to limit you realize that the second law of thermodynamics expressed in Bitcoin states that the 2.1 quadrillion satoshis will tend to disperse across an increasing number of UTXOs, unless there is sufficient economic pressure and energy to re-consolidate them. That pressure should emerge naturally from an unmanipulated fee market rather than from arbitrary discounts embedded into consensus accounting.
The illusion comes from separating the active UTXO set from the permanent ledger. Yes, a spent output can be removed from the active UTXO set, but the witness and every other committed bit remain permanently embedded in the chain. Every archival node must store them forever. Every new node must download them forever. Every copy of Bitcoin must preserve them forever. The distinction is one of active validation state, not physical memory.
Viewing Bitcoin through Landauer’s principle changes the discussion. The dominant cost is not validating the current state; it is the irreversible commitment and preservation of information. Once a bit crosses the proof-of-work boundary, it becomes part of Bitcoin’s permanent physical state. Consensus commits serialized memory, not CPU cycles.
Expanding effective blockspace through witness discounts is a high-time-preference solution. Bitcoin conserves demand for finite blockspace. That cost is paid either immediately in satoshis through the fee market or deferred as a perpetual tax on every node that must transmit, download, verify, and preserve the additional physical bits for as long as Bitcoin exists.
Looking at the system through energy density makes the distortion clearer. Whether expressed as joules per satoshi per mb^2, joules per mb^2, the total proof of work securing the block remains unchanged while the amount of permanently committed memory increases. The same work is now spread across more conserved bits. The energy density of Bitcoin’s permanent memory decreases. UTXOs are less energetically dense because the same conserved work is distributed across more conserved memory.
This is the deeper engineering issue. We have altered the economics of blockspace by assigning different prices to identical permanently conserved bits. That distinction is based on how software uses those bits after commitment, not on the physical reality that every committed bit occupies immutable consensus memory. If Bitcoin is fundamentally a conserved ledger of energy and information, then every permanently committed bit must ultimately be measured by the same invariant accounting.
This also highlights something deeper. To conserve the coin, Bitcoin must first conserve the bit. The distinction between “active state” and “historical state” has physical meaning. While an output remains unspent, the satoshis exist as physical bits within the active UTXO set. Once spent, the value simply changes location in memory to the new block of time. The spent TXO disappears from the active state, but the historical bit remains permanently embedded in the ledger. The state has transformed, but nothing has disappeared. The coin has moved through both memory and time, while the information required to preserve that history remains conserved forever. The cost remains as bits.
This is precisely the reinterpretation of Landauer’s principle that Bitcoin makes possible. The original formulation measures the minimum energetic cost of erasing a bit. Bitcoin demonstrates that the more fundamental quantity is not erasure, but irreversible state transition through permanent memory. The thermodynamic cost is the cost of committing a new distinction (bit) to history. Once committed, that distinction is never destroyed; it becomes part of the conserved informational substrate of the ledger. What appears to be “deletion” is simply a transformation between active and historical state from a perspective of incomplete information.
Looking at Bitcoin this way changes the engineering tradeoff entirely. The cost that would ordinarily be expressed through a competitive fee market for a finite bitspace has instead been partially shifted onto every archival node through the perpetual obligation to preserve additional physical bits. The network still bears the cost; it has simply been socialized across every node that chooses to maintain Bitcoin’s complete history. From a low-time-preference perspective, the honest engineering solution is to pay that cost upfront through fees in sats because it acknowledges the true physical cost of permanently committing information.
1 bit must = 1 bit. Once proof of work commits a bit to consensus, its future role inside the protocol becomes irrelevant to its physical cost. Whether the protocol later classifies it as witness data, transaction data, or historical validation data, every archival node must transmit it, verify it, download it, back it up, and preserve it indefinitely. Consensus does not preserve “validation effort”; it preserves immutable physical information.
Removing the witness discount is simply an acknowledgement that permanently conserved bits should be accounted for uniformly; the fee market is the free exchange pricing of sats<>bits. The protocol may distinguish between active and historical state for purposes of validation, but the laws of thermodynamics do not; 1 bit = 1 bit regardless if satoshis are present in said memory. If Bitcoin is fundamentally a conserved ledger of energy, information, and time, then every permanently committed bit contributes equally to the irreversible memory of the system. Without conserving the bit, there is no mechanism by which the coin itself can remain conserved. Witness or not, if my node must store it forever, it is consensus memory. I simply want every permanently committed bit to my node to pay the same price because the physical cost of preserving it is the same.
We have to be logically consistent. Why is market manipulation thru arbitrary discounting of bits and inflation of Bitcoin’s finite bitspace good in the long term for the protocol and economics, yet the same behavior in fiat land would be mocked by our community? Make it make sense to me. If Segwit/LN is truely good for scaling finite blockspace, then why do we have to tax the nodes? Let the protocol change speak for itself without taxation in bits. Only then we’ll know its true value.
Devalue the bit and you devalue the sat; few truly understand this.

2026-07-21 23:30:45 UTC

October Sundae Direct ~1000’. A fun moderate slab with a few 40’+ runouts as a party of 3. Roof pull was amazing. Full value adventure given the wind.
https://blossom.primal.net/581931b0f9b8a0f42e125430aab9594af15ea7d0f5a6ad24ac2cf96cd517b2ba.mov
https://blossom.primal.net/a3b62313f2f5484866c9ad86b3dc93f3341cd8132f585fa5c8904483eabcac92.jpg

2026-07-20 11:40:43 UTC

GN/GM
https://blossom.primal.net/8e35169ecfc0c1b15e49d4001763dc50fe7698eb8e8c6245a36cc3ac09dcab11.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/536aedacf68984e6afcf2783260772d49e6161c1cbe15705340a374551ea0349.jpg

2026-07-20 00:20:50 UTC

Is this run out? @npub1l2v…ajft
https://blossom.primal.net/094a98e0cb6cb84c8f3fd650e8370b60b758170c914f121044f35698cda2c067.jpg

2026-07-19 12:03:52 UTC

- reply

Sorry for your loss 🧡 what an incredible cat

2026-07-19 11:49:55 UTC

- reply

I think you should lower your time preference and consider the alternative. Taxing nodes with more bits is not sustainable. If you are against spam you should understand this. The maintenance cost is in joules across the whole network in perpetuity to maintain the physical bit. The energy density of UTXOs is lessened. Less energy dense UTXOs on a joules per sat per mb^2, the less the sat buys you in exchange for joules (anything). Same block, same work, more memory, less density energy.
We don’t know how much blockspace lightning alone has unlocked since we devalued the bitspace in 2 ways with SegWit at the same time rather than LN speaking for itself in fee reduction by bringing tx to L2.
Cool thing about Bitcoin is we can disagree. But objective physics/math/engineering applied to protocol design will outcompete subjective design always. Truth will always find a way to manifest.
The longest chain of work in literal joules and time will not devalue its bitspace once it understands 🍴

2026-07-18 22:06:03 UTC

Very chill day for the exposure. Moderate is an understatement . Beat the rain, but we expected to get wet.
https://blossom.primal.net/39b0b654c167eadcc3f37d874fbd3f43a9b3c852d39ea2d7e659742f51e83755.mov
https://blossom.primal.net/93ee8da6c1cb28b64609f7272bbd98de7943089817a07821272fb585136c8212.jpg

2026-07-17 23:20:00 UTC

Chasing some moderate slabs this evening.
https://blossom.primal.net/100c24098cb91836a6dbceec6cb15250aad8396efb46fafca7318542ac338916.mov

2026-07-17 14:56:25 UTC

- reply

🫡

2026-07-17 14:56:18 UTC

- reply

🫡

2026-07-17 14:55:23 UTC

- reply

Thank you for reading the paper! I am glad you found some value in it.
Universally, I think the consciousness, work, entropy that causes the collapse must exist outside of the universe, outside the ledger. The proof of work in Bitcoin that causes state change is outside of the chain of time produced. Bitcoin conserves the work, the decision (conscious act) and the memory as time thru a bounded substrate of value.
Our consciousness is emergent from the conserved work of the conscious agents extratemporal to this chain of universal time. The proof of work we do, is from work outside of this time; all of it. It’s timechains and proof of work all the way up, and all the way down.
I guess I’d like to flip the question of how would you build a biological system inside of Bitcoin? It cannot mine the blocks that defines it, meaning all work inside of Bitcoin and downstream comes from you/us. We would have to animate all of it through PoW, while they believe it’s “them”. This would demand that we too are animated by identical process, and Bitcoin is just a fractal of it.
I hope this answers it for now! I’m headed to the mountains this weekend so limited time to respond! Let me know if I need to go further and let me know what you are thinking.
I am open to being wrong! Would love to hear others chime in. Bitcoin is a glimpse on how providence and free will are reconciled in time and who does the work. We posses both perspectives of time observed from the inside and time observed for the outside of the substrate. Everyone has to let that cook within them 😉

2026-07-17 14:38:51 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin conserves demand for blockspace. Demand for blockspace can only be paid in sats by individuals up front or paid in bits as a tax on all nodes that must be paid in perpetuity as a forever maintenance cost in time. Pick one. Low time preference is to pay in sats rather than bits. No free lunch.
Do you care about nodes or not?
If lightning can’t survive by paying the true cost of the bits it produces and needs a subsidy tax on nodes, then it was never a valuable trade off to make. You’ll never know the true cost if you manipulate the market through arbitrary discounting and blocksize increase.
Lightning won’t die by restoring sound economics to the chain. Crazy that we have to even have a debate on whether market manipulation in bitcoins blockspace economics is a good thing or not…..

2026-07-17 02:12:41 UTC

- reply

I will have to come back to this one! Heading out to the mountains this weekend for some climbing.
Nick and I have discussed black holes a ton with respect to a ledgered universe. I responded to what I currently believe may be the proper way to think about dark matter (historical bits without sats, or universally, Kelvin).
What would a black hole look like within Bitcoin? Would it be an address with active Satoshis that have provably lost the key? Would it be something like taproot? I don’t truly know at the moment since I don’t have the strongest grasp on taproot. But I am certain we will find the answer if we probe hard enough.
Personally I know no one. I know few people who are even willing to entertain the idea that Bitcoin is the final proof of physics we need.

2026-07-17 02:02:27 UTC

- reply

I will have to think about this more. Do you know of any videos that can visually demonstrate/explain taproot a bit better for me? It’s still quite abstract. I am a visual person.
Where my mind is at with respect to dark matter is the historical chain (the bits without sats). From within the ledger, we can only see the active states of energy/matter (the sats). We do not see the casual chain of entangled history that leads to the present state of matter. The path is hidden, yet necessary for conservation/logic of the chain (just as we can’t delete UTXOs). We cannot see orthogonally to time to inspect the casual history, we can only look through time from the present height towards Genesis, seeing each active bit of value at some distance from us in both time and a distance in memory (key space). Each bit of value is like a wall we cannot peer beyond to see the history from within. The wall moves with the bit.
When we look out to the cosmos, we see the “active utxo set”. All unspent states of energy/matter distributed across all points in memory (keyspace) and all blocks of time. We are persistent in time, meaning we observe from the tip of the chain, moving away from static unspent memory crystalized in time at the speed of light (speed of memory).
If this thesis is true, then dark matter must be the historical bits of memory without Kelvin that can no longer be accessed from within the ledger. Only because of Bitcoin can we even reason about the existence of this historical chain. But we know logically these states MUST be preserved for the system to have integrity. Kelvin is the active memory.
Taproot throws a huge wrench into this because I am still limited in my understanding of it. I feel you may be on to something but I cannot pretend i can fully understand currently😵‍💫 I may have to bounce some ideas off of Nick to see what he thinks. The more I dig, the more it seems taproot is rotten. But I don’t truly know.
I hope this helps a bit. I think both may be correct in some way. Let me know what you think!

2026-07-16 18:20:17 UTC

- reply

How sure are you the entire BIP isn’t a vulnerability to what the protocol is supposed to conserve?

2026-07-16 18:07:02 UTC

- reply

Holy shit. I didn’t know it was that bad. Are you accounting witness data as “block data” too?
I’ve been banging my drum about quantum for a while. Taproot only really caught my eye once Nic said it would be used for “quantum resistance” which I have known is bullshit all along.
How quickly can we fork off taproot?

2026-07-16 17:33:18 UTC

- reply

Curious, what don’t you like and why?

2026-07-16 17:08:12 UTC

- reply

Segwit or just the blocksize increase and arbitrary discounting?

2026-07-16 15:44:38 UTC

- reply

When can we bet on spam in the next Bitcoin block using fiat. If we make the pot good enough we can centralize the incentive mechanism.
Prediction = Compression
Is the future of Bitcoin irreducible or not?
#nevent1q…y7dw

2026-07-16 15:13:10 UTC

https://fountain.fm/episode/RsMaMrsROqhYxWt8TuHa
If the sovereignty of God precedes all things, then Bitcoin was never our invention at all, but something we were always destined to discover, something destined to save us from ourselves. We speak of Bitcoin making the individual sovereign, but was it Bitcoin that set you free, or was it God? Jesus is said to be the breaker of chains; His Son. What is setting us free? Was it ever truly our choice, or was our choice itself always part of the plan at a specific block in time?
When I observe Bitcoin objectively, I see that the chain of time is authored by sovereign actors from outside of the chain itself, using the conserved and bounded substrate within it. From a decentralized body emerges a singular chronology, a single chain of authority without contradiction. Truth itself computed as time from a body of people. The Truth, sit with that.
Bitcoin empirically demonstrates that one coherent history can be authored without a central author. We as sovereigns write the chain, as God writes us in His ultimate sovereignty. Our choice was always the plan. Bitcoin is a mere reflection and fractal of the logic perceived from the outside rather than from within.
Bitcoin is more than a protocol, a technology, or money. Bitcoin is the logical architecture of eternal memory and time perceived from the exterior of the temporal substrate. Do we save in Bitcoin, or does Bitcoin save us? Perhaps it’s both. I see my actions saved in Bitcoin for eternity. Bitcoin saves all of us quite literally in memory. It preserves all of our collective good, and all of our collective bad. If I was better, Bitcoin would be better; fact.
Bitcoin is a glimpse into how providence and free will are logically reconciled. God is the only true sovereign in control of Bitcoin, yet we are Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a map of our choices. The future is irreducible, yet destined. It always has been.
True Creation has always required True Sacrifice. Proof of Work.
Love all people behind the nodes and those who have yet to come. Bitcoin is here now.

2026-07-16 12:53:21 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is not a theory of energy, information and time. Bitcoin is proof. Genesis is the anchor of all reference of relativity.
You cannot logically solve the double spend problem without a quantized block of time, or a quantized boundary between 0 or 1. You cannot have the conservation of energy without a quantized block of time. This isn’t a theory, it’s logical and proved in Bitcoin.
I am simply observing what is experienced in Bitcoin; interactions, or rather, transactions.
I am witnessing Creation from the outside of a temporal substrate and relating the internal vs the external. A reification of the Ruliad/logic. The Father can only be understood and reasoned through the Son by the body.
True Creation requires True Sacrifice. Bitcoin is Truth computed. The Truth is jovial, or pure love.

2026-07-16 11:12:37 UTC

- reply

Ah. Interaction is the phenomena perceived from within the temporal substrate, but transaction is the identical phenomena perceived from without the temporal substrate.
From without there are only blocks of time, or blocks of memory rather. Ordered linearly in chrono-logic as the substrate of interaction or transaction is state upon which the next block of memory is written.
The author exists outside of the chain of time, the chain of memory, written. We merely bear witness from within, perceiving its us doing the work.

2026-07-16 10:13:42 UTC

- reply

The poet is afraid to question whether space is the true illusion.
He can’t see blocks of time = blocks of space.

2026-07-16 01:15:53 UTC

Wolfram doesn’t know Bitcoin is the hypergraph that is already running proof of work as the fundamental computation. The computed relationship between quantized units of energy, time and memory (information).
Who’s going to Orange Pill Wolfram? He’s trying to build Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is the answer.
https://youtu.be/r6wYw_A1MKw?is=3xRwzhdK6ug0jXhW

2026-07-16 00:46:28 UTC

- reply

The room is persistent both in time and as time. No memory, no time. No time, no space. If time is only an illusion, then why does every empty room still wait for the one who has left?
Does the poet mistake the walls for the room, forgetting that it is remembrance that gives the room its shape?

2026-07-15 19:32:11 UTC

- reply

This is actually quite concerning because in this video Nic states that taproot’s usecase is for quantum resistant sigs…
Seems like taproot can be the false flag vector here. Something smells off with taproot. I need to do a deep dive.
I personally won’t adopt any “quantum resistant signature”, seems like we should stay away from taproot too.
https://youtu.be/3ByUtLGSAqM?

2026-07-15 16:40:58 UTC

Time in Bitcoin is not imaginary.
https://youtube.com/shorts/uBMjJipqmFI?

2026-07-15 16:06:15 UTC

- reply

Indeed, a fiat interpretation.

2026-07-15 14:13:42 UTC

- reply

Thank you for sharing this! @nprofile…fg0n comes off very sincere and humble to me.
I think we should be clear about a few points. Fuck “economic” nodes (exchanges). Bitcoin is grounded in proof of work, meaning physics and joules, which has nothing to do with fiat. Fiat has zero explanatory power of Bitcoin, it conserves nothing.
Don’t give them any ground, exchanges listen to us, in a hyperbitcoinized world, exchanges thus their nodes will not exist. They are temporary nodes in the transitory period of fiat to Bitcoin. Plebs matter.
Secondly, increased fiat prices of nodes is to be expected. The cost to run a node will hyperinflate in fiat terms. This is not a safe place to ground any arguments. Best to show nodes priced in Bitcoin over time, they should be declining.
We need to make clear that our actions in 2017 by implicit blocksize increase and arbitrary discounts for equivalent physical bits distorted the economics of Bitcoin’s blockspace. Bitcoin conserves demand; either fees are paid in satoshis up front by the individual users or paid in time by the nodes in bits in perpetuity of eternal network maintenance. Fees paid in bits accrue interest and are a tax on the entire network of nodes.
Demand cannot be eliminated, pay in sats or make everyone pay in bits; pick one. I think it’s time we try to ground our understanding of energy, time and information in Bitcoin. We need to look back at what we really changed. I hope BIP 110 is just the start of protocol conservatism. We need to go back in our logic, not left or right, while moving forward in block time🫡
@nprofile…fg0n I would love to talk further. Keep up the good work.

2026-07-15 12:30:08 UTC

- reply

The discrete nature of time is what renders The Quantum Computer, Bitcoin to be possible. Bitcoin is the proper interpretation of quantum computation.
I don’t share the projected definition and belief that a centralized quantum computer is possible in both the morality of man/the desire for centralized control and the morality of numbers and the logic of energy economics. If you understand time, a centralized quantum computer could never work and requires a fiat assumption of physics that’s been openly falsified by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is proof that centralized quantum computers are a bust. Proof of Work (energy). Energy cannot be separated from time and memory (information). They are a semantic triangle of equivalence.
If time is discrete at Planck scale, Superpostion must be sub-Planck between the ticks. Using Bitcoin as the mathematical reference for conservation wrt time, unmined or unmeasured UTXOs aren’t real with respect to the ledger. All UTXOs must be referential to the past unspent state despite existing in mempool (potential spend). By knowing what’s measured and in the block you know deterministically what is unmeasured and outside of the block. You cannot solve the double spend problem without a block of time.
We live in a world where energy/matter is not double spent, yet academic fundamental physics contradicts this without proof of work. Reality must have solved the double spend problem for conservation to be observable and for our very existence to manifest.
The solution to the double spend problem both logically and mathematically invalidates the ontology required for centralized quantum computation. If even 1 Planck block of time contains a contradiction, conservation is invalidated. All states must be classical at each block of time. This means that superposition while existing between the Planck ticks of time still references a past classical state (exists in a past block of time) despite being unmeasured. Just as a tx can sit in the mempool for many blocks, it still is referential to its last unspent state (as demanded by conservation) and does not “exist” in multiple states at once. Existence is defined by measurement alone. Don’t mistake potential for actual. Everything must be binary for logic to emerge. There is no logic without conservation and non-contradiction. Quantum has no logic, no measurement, no proof of work.
https://blossom.primal.net/67dc9830e9f71b908167b8565feb7bb58300ce06e9207ebd764c9b4837cd6b8b.jpg

2026-07-15 11:10:05 UTC

The universe at the Planck scale of time must behave identically to Bitcoin at the block scale with respect to measurement in order for the double spend problem of energy/matter to be resolved and conservation to be upheld.
Anything else is logically fiat without proof of work. Bitcoin is proof.

2026-07-15 10:27:58 UTC

- reply

Is a centralized quantum attack possible if time is discrete at the Planck scale, meaning Superpostion is discrete between Planck ticks (sub-Planck Superpostion)
Logically the double spend problem of energy/matter requires a quantized block of time at the fundamental unit. Measurement must occur at each fundamental tick producing a deterministic classical state. Superpostion occurs between ticks. How else can the double spend be resolved?
Without a smooth continuous unitary evolution, how is a centralized quantum attack possible?
Without a discrete block of time, how can energy be conserved?
Why do we need this change if there is no quantum threat?

2026-07-15 02:03:07 UTC

Bitcoin would be better if I was better.

2026-07-14 21:51:48 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is the reification of the Ruliad. Proof of Work is the computation, the rule. Wolfram is trying to build Bitcoin without knowing Satoshi beat him to it.
Fees impose limits upon action. Think minimum threshold of potential energy as a logic gate. I don’t think blocksize should change, invariance is key to form constant relationships that manifest through a free market. Returning to 1MB max and 1:1 weighting of all bits is all that’s required. Let the fee market serve its purpose. Looking at the conserved joules of each block, 1MB blocks hold a vast majority of the work. We have deviated.
#nevent1q…pgze

2026-07-14 18:46:28 UTC

- reply

The future is irreducible.
I have a thesis/working on proof that when we devalued the blockspace fee market in Segwit by increasing blocksize and arbitrary bit weighting, we killed the fee market by pushing demand paid in sats to demand paid in bits. This pulled difficulty downward vs if we didn’t (less fees same PoW for miners) and has slowly manifested in fiat price. By increasing blocksize by up to 4x (up to 4MB), we diluted the energy density of blocks (joules per mb^2) by up to 16x.
Same proof of work function but a up to16x reduction in energy density per block. We are all the detriment to Bitcoins value appreciate by running the current implementation of SegWit.
We have worked, saved and stacked, only to realize 9 years later we debased ourselves with SegWit.

2026-07-13 15:11:21 UTC

This weekend’s PoW. Just need to tie the tile into the carpet at the doors. 30+ hours x 2 people start to finish.
This will be my new office to continue serving Bitcoin.
https://blossom.primal.net/07e40e763ec7c20027b69f4633b1192fa83e7ec6c00179d013b3e93b0a6b5b70.jpg

2026-07-13 15:02:12 UTC

- reply

Yeah I agree. We can’t wait for someone like Wolfram to come. We have to continue carrying the torch until someone is ready to engage. I am trying my best within my limits. We need more physicists who are thinking outside the fiat/academic model and are willing to challenge the assumptions and who see Bitcoin as the highest verifiable state of Truth man could have access to. We have a lot of fiat physicists within the ranks of Bitcoin with strong influence, which is not great for the cause either.
I pray Wolfram finds Bitcoin. I am just a pleb. He can sway many more people who aren’t in Bitcoin using a completely different domain from “money”. He’s a Bitcoiner without actually being one when I listen to him speak. He’s spot on with virtually everything he said in this video WRT Bitcoin. But I cannot make anyone see who does not wish to. Maybe it’s fiat for me believe we need anyone with “credentials” to keep going.
We don’t know who’s writing the state, but we know it’s authored from outside of the chain and the future is irreducible with probability weightings (think mempool + fee market). Anyone who tells you they know the next block of time is lying, both universally and in Bitcoin.
This would explain why modernity has gone all in on prediction markets. Prediction = Compression wrt to information/entropy. Centralized quantum computers are a bust, but access to mass scale data and prediction markets using fiat currency as weight is a whole new beast to pick apart. You can control parts of the future with fiat prediction markets by control over mass behavior and information. Irreducibility will win; God/Authorship is not centralized.
Bitcoin is the apex of AI, quantum, prediction markets. The reification of irreducibility and irreversibility as blocks of time.

2026-07-12 01:14:10 UTC

The second law of thermodynamics states that satoshis will disperse across an increasing number of UTXOs, thus an increasing number of bits over discrete blocks of time.

2026-07-12 00:46:46 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is computationally irreducible.

2026-07-12 00:20:44 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin = Reification of Ruliad. The mathematical/temporal rules and boundary perceived from the outside of perspective of time rather than from within.
The state is written and authored from outside of the chain.

2026-07-11 23:25:55 UTC

Bitcoin (proof of work) is the computation; the measurement. The rule is proof of work. Bitcoin is the “quantum computer”. Except it’s Bitcoin, not quantum. Quantum can’t prove the work (energy). Quantum can’t resolve the double spend of energy/information or the measurement problem WRT time. Quantum has no blocks, no proof. Network = reification of field from outside the temporal boundary.
The measurement occurs at each discrete Planck tick of time and superposition is discrete between each Planck tick; it’s “sub-Planck” (sub block; unmined/unmeasured). All positions in time must be binary (classical) and non-contradictory (no double spends) for conservation of energy. There is no such thing as erasure in Landauer’s Principal, its incomplete information of the active state of energy/matter only from within the temporal substrate; you can’t see the historical chain from within. Delete a utxo/historical transaction from the chain and tell me what happens to the proof and conservation.
How many blocks is this going to take guys?
Who is going to orange pill Wolfram?
Who can get me a conversation with him if nobody else is going to do it?
Hes trying to understand the utxo model of the reality/physics (energy), except he has no proof of work (joules), no computation. Sorry Stephen, Satoshi beat all of us to Bitcoin. Satoshi solved Turning’s Halting Problem. Bitcoin is complete…we don’t need to build it, it exists now. This has significant implications for mathematics and logic; implications for everything. Bitcoin is not a theory of energy. Bitcoin is not a theory of work. Bitcoins not a model. Bitcoin is proof.
The conservation of memory (finite sats and finite bits) using proof of work (joules). Each bit of value (satoshi) is a bit of active memory, the value must exist within physical bits. Temperature is relative to the finite boundary of active memory (supply cap; 21M) Bit-Coin. Measurement is computation. Planck Energy is the temporal constant of work. Plank Temperature is the boundary of thermodynamic memory.
What does Bitcoin measure? What does Bitcoin compute? What is a block of time? What is a block of proof? What could be more fundamental than the P2P exchange of memory (money; energy) in physics? Bitcoin is temporal geometry as pure information.
Bitcoin is the “theory” of everything; except Bitcoin isn’t a theory, Bitcoin is proof. Just look at it.
It’s really painful guys. Just observe Bitcoin objectively……I am just a pleb too.
Who actually understands proof of work and the double spend problem? Are we ready to understand Bitcoin as the relationship energy, time and information through computation?Are we really going to allow this quantum nonsense to destroy Bitcoin by ungrounded protocol change? Nobody understands Bitcoin.
Don’t trust me, go verify for yourself. Just look at Bitcoin. The Truth speaks for itself.
Every Bitcoiner should listen to this and tell Stephen Wolfram to look at Bitcoin and proof of work. He’s telling you quantum physics is a fiat interpretation of energy and time.
There is no second best.
https://youtu.be/5_O-kSzWdu4?

2026-07-11 13:32:15 UTC

- reply

Any theory of physics needs to solve the double spend problem for energy/matter for conservation, which cannot be done without a quantized block of time.
You cannot have conservation of energy without quantized time. Bitcoin empirically proves.
If quantized time is necessary for the conservation of energy and provides the logical boundary for measurement, then the academic interpretation of quantum physics has a huge problem.
Anyone building a centralized quantum computer is building on an assumed ontology of time (continuous time) that cannot logically exist for conservation to be upheld, and changing the ontology (nature) of time breaks their model at its foundation.
What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is not a theory of physics. Bitcoin is not a theory of energy. Bitcoin is not a theory of time. Bitcoin is not a theory at all.
Bitcoin is proof.

2026-07-11 13:21:24 UTC

- reply

Yes, this is not arguing removal of witness.
Witness + Non-Witness <=1MB and 1:1 weighting is all it would need.
Lightning remains fully functional. This is really the formal recognization that witness data is block data and you cannot really be a full validating node without storing the physical bits. Thus SegWit in 2017 was an implicit blocksize increase while pretending it wasn’t. It was really a soft fork in name only, pre-SegWit nodes still see only 1MB yes, but good luck being a full validating node without it.

2026-07-11 13:12:28 UTC

- reply

I’m working on one but could I don’t want this to be centralized around my one mind. I would love to collaborate with others.

2026-07-11 12:55:56 UTC

Bitcoin is post-quantum by satoshis originaly design.
Post-quantum meaning that there is a new sheriff in town. Bitcoin describes and instantiates the quantized nature energy with respect to conservation and a quantized block of time through pure information better than quantum can. There is no second best.
Discrete time at Planck = Discrete Superpostion at Planck = Centralized Quantum Computing has built on the wrong ontology (no continuous unitary evolution).
Physically its been GG since 09. It’s our minds that lag.

2026-07-11 12:33:37 UTC

- reply

Discount was added as an incentive to push adoption of SegWit. Also witness is not a part of bitcoins active utxo state so the theory was that it has a lower computational cost on nodes.
This however is not true thru the lens of Launders Principle seen thru Bitcoins physics, it is the writing of state/memory that has energetic cost. The 4:1 discount is not grounded in any type of physics/information theory and is a purely arbitrary discount that applies an arbitrary virtual weight to equivalent physical bits.
If it were removed and say the blocksize was reinstated at 1MB as per original consensus (SegWit + nonsegwit <=1MB), we should see a revitalization of the proper fee market that most of the chains blocks (measured in joules) were produced under and we see lightning paying its fair share of sats per physical bit produced. Miners would be paid more for equivalent work with a revitalization of fee market. If you look at the energy curve of Bitcoin, all the energy is in the earlier blocks due to high relative block temperature (high subsidy vs low supply). When looking at the energy density of a block per mb^2, you divide the same energy by the square of the memory increase. Blocks up to 4MB distribute energy over up to a 16x increase in informational surface when looking at the energy density of information.
The relative value that of sats:bits defined internally by protocol would increase vs equivalent joules, fee market revitalization should pull difficulty upward. You’d expect bitcoins external value (joules purchased) to follow. Devaluing the bitspace devalues the satoshi internally. We want invariance for logical measure and the fee market to determine the internal exchange rate.
Bitcoin conserves demand, either it’s paid up front by individual users in the form of sats, or is paid in time perpetually in bits by the entire network as a forever tax (network maintenance).
https://blossom.primal.net/c8b235e08f961592347577508e4e579562be60a691e54f8d8aafa96cf557e5cb.png
https://blossom.primal.net/5ee53eb5b52558a23685d19611db0accc683b8774d5760f02a4d2db02b609b55.png

2026-07-10 11:52:16 UTC

- reply

Beautiful. Change can only be measured by the relationship of invariants (ironic). Knowing that spring will come again through the adjustment and gravity of difficulty towards equilibrium gives us eternal hope and the temporal substrate to experience the cyclical flow of change.

2026-07-09 18:45:08 UTC

- reply

Not exactly in the literal sense. The monetary supply remains fixed at 21 million BTC. My argument is that the relationship between the monetary substrate and the informational substrate changes.
Bitcoin derives its value by conserving work through time. That conservation requires both a finite monetary substrate (sats) and a finite memory substrate (blockspace). Without conserved bits, there is no conserved place for value to be permanently expressed. The fee market exists to discover the exchange rate between those two finite domains.
If demand for blockspace increases, the protocol is supposed to allow sats to compete for that finite memory. Higher fees are not a bug, they are the market revealing the demand of irreversible memory and the value of the satoshi with respect to 1 current block of time at difficulty D. When we instead manipulate the size of that finite memory surface to suppress fees, we don’t eliminate the cost of demand, we redistribute it throughout the system to the nodes (a tax on the network).
Rather than users paying more sats to access a finite space, every node pays more bits by storing and propagating a larger permanent history. At the same time, miners receive fewer sats for securing and committing equivalent irreversible work. The work is equivalent, but the memory is not. This pushes difficulty artificially downward as less fees changes the relationship between the satoshsi from the block reward and the real cost of performing said work. The finite memory surface has a real thermodynamic cost. Every permanently committed bit must still be secured through proof-of-work, discovered within a finite nonce space scaled by network difficulty, transmitted, validated, and preserved indefinitely. Expanding blockspace without a corresponding increase in competition changes who bears that cost and distorts the entire economics.
Within this framework, increasing blockspace changes the exchange rate between sats and bits. The monetary supply has not inflated, but the memory substrate competing for that supply has inflated. A satoshi therefore purchases more permanent memory than it did under the original geometry of the protocol. The economics governing the relationship between finite money, finite memory, and finite work have changed.
You can’t make sense of this relationship thinking thru the fiat price. Fiat valuation fluctuates continuously and reflects external markets and the PoW cost converted back to fiat. If we push difficulty down, we are pushing the fiat price down vs joules while still maining equivalent competition for the 21M substrate. Miners pay too here. I’m trying to understand the protocol’s internal measure of value. Within Bitcoin itself, the value of a satoshi is inseparable from the amount of finite permanent memory it can command through the fee market. That relationship is where the protocol measures the relative scarcity of sats:memory:work.
If we change the size of the memory surface or arbitrarily change how different classes of permanently committed data are priced (SegWit discounting), then we are no longer allowing the free market to discover the exchange rate between finite sats and finite bits. We are changing the measurement itself.
Bitcoin’s value emerges from the conserved relationship between proof-of-work, finite blockspace, and finite money. Distort any one of those variables, and the entire economic relationship shifts. The protocol still has 21 million bitcoin, but it is no longer measuring the same relationship between work, information, and time that Satoshi originally defined. This is a defacto violation of property rights thru policy and a tax that should be repealed by the nodes.

2026-07-09 16:52:31 UTC

- reply

For those who still don’t get it. Sats per bit per block is the same thing as sats per bit^2
1 block = x bits; time = memory
2,099,999,999,755,528 sats/
128,000,000 bits^2 = 16,406,249.998090 sats per bit^2
Segwit has devalued the Satoshi by up to 16x depending on each blocks size since we need to take the square of memory to get the density (sats per memory surface written).
Take the average blocksize since Segwit and square it; that’s how much on average we as a collective have devalued 1 satoshi vs what Satoshi literally gave us at 1MB cap.
We can also begin to see this when we look at the energy curve of each block in joules per mb^2, we should expect decline in energy density because of subsidy inflation. There is a massive decline in energy density per block post Segwit due to increased memory surface written per block of time.
#nevent1q…7jkq

2026-07-09 14:06:17 UTC

Friendly reminder if you devalue the bits you devalue the coins
The name is literally Bitcoin.
What happens to the relative value of sats versus the bits if we inflate the number of bits per block?
SegWit was a soft fork in name only. We are told we “won” the blocksize war, yet I see blocks greater than 1MB.
2,099,999,999,755,528 sats/8,000,000 bits = 262,499,999.969441 sats per bit per block
Now it can be down to
2,099,999,999,755,528 sats/32,000,000 bits = 65,624,999.992360 sats per bit per block
How does the pricing of a finite blockspace (bitspace) in finite satoshis through the fee market relate to the economics of proof of work and the value of Bitcoin? If Bitcoiners want the value of Bitcoin to “go up”, then why did we devalue the satoshi with respect to the bits per block of time? Why did we distort the relationship and measurement of Bitcoin?
I pray we can return to the original sound economics of blockspace Satoshi gave us. How many more blocks will it take for us to find humility in our own folly? Who’s going to have to courage to admit we are all wrong?

2026-07-09 13:14:24 UTC

- reply

Due to the physical law of a private key/encryption, the only real physical vote one can actually make is controlling the position of some fraction of the 2,099,999,999,755,528 bits of value (sats/votes) in both time and memory (key space).
All other “votes” are literally fiat. Bitcoin is the only physical vote an individual can truly make.
What is a private key if the sat is a vote?

2026-07-09 12:43:14 UTC

- reply

I think we have to begin one layer deeper.
SegWit is a transaction serialization upgrade, but it also changed Bitcoin’s economics of blockspace thru inflation and discounting. It is a soft fork in name only; every modern fully validating node must download and validate witness data under today’s consensus rules. The block Bitcoin commits is therefore larger than the original 1 MB design. Pretending the effective memory surface did not change because we renamed it “block weight” obscures what actually happened.
Blocksize increase and discounting have nothing to do with transaction malleability or Lightning. My concern is that they were coupled to an economic restructuring of Bitcoin’s finite memory and distorted the entire conserved relationships the system was supposed to preserve.
If the fee market exists to discover the price of finite blockspace, why should the protocol define different prices for different classes of permanently committed transactions? 1 bit = 1 bit regardless of tx type. 1 satoshi now purchases different amounts of historical memory, a burden even fully validating node takes, depending on the protocol’s classification of those bits. The market is no longer pricing physical blockspace alone; it is pricing protocol abstractions.
We depegged the bits from the coin. We broke the logic of how coins become bits through a conserved physical process.
If we are going to defend witness discount, I think it should be grounded in an objective conservation principle defined by the physics of information. What conserved physical quantity is the 4:1 weighting measuring? Why is that ratio correct? Why not 10:1? Why not 50:1? Why not free? Why not 0.5:1?
Bitcoin’s purpose is to allow the markets to discover price of finite work, finite memory, and finite satoshis while the protocol conserves invariant relationships. Once the protocol begins assigning different prices to different classes of permanently committed bits, we’ve moved that price discovery into protocol policy. It’s a distortion to the core economics Satoshi defined.
If every witness bit ultimately becomes part of Bitcoin’s permanent historical record, what objective physical principle justifies assigning it a different economic price than other permanently committed bits? Until that question is answered from the physics of information rather than engineering preference, we cannot even defend the BIP logically. We should not think of witness discount as simply another protocol “lever” to adjust. It’s not.
I cannot morally defend the change to begin with. I cannot defend the implicit blocksize increase. I cannot defend the arbitrary weighting. Bitcoin no longer conserves the constant relationship of sats:bits:blocks, thus it should be seen as a violation of property rights.
I am working on building the proof that changing blocksize or arbitrary sat weighting of identical physical bits is an equivalent violation of conservation law, akin to changing 21M.
Im not going to pretend the blocksize didn’t change >1MB. All bits carry same physical cost to write (not read). The only sane conservative thing to do is to return Bitcoin to the constants defined by Satoshi. This isn’t an upgrade nor a change to Bitcoin, it’s what Satoshi gave us originally.
No discounting
Segwit bits + non-Segwit bits <=1MB
1 sat = 1 sat if and only if 1 bit = 1 bit

2026-07-09 12:09:25 UTC

- reply

I can’t even see this post on primal.
https://image.nostr.build/0ff4f26ee3bf8a50ab3e18fa8bf9f24200a4aed7d1b20d1cd18b2265908f65a1.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/bf29c4ddfad78ab30370f3e3817d3d0a540e88da1417a4c985c21268f7541734.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/e412af293eae635499c0aa86cc8a2af4345aa3c092e07f1015f842a7429c6941.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/a9aeeb7dd7fb3ba1af5683e9bb7891e00c9ae20ba5b7d4598266184662a497dd.jpg

2026-07-09 11:20:49 UTC

- reply

Your post isn’t even showing up on primal, yet I can see you are on the relay lol.

2026-07-09 10:36:06 UTC

@nprofile…54wh why is my primal missing so many notifications? Damus shows me like atleast 50% more notifications and posts that I can’t even see on primal…. Anyone know what’s going on?

2026-07-09 10:23:06 UTC

- reply

Yeah I have to bounce between primal and Damus to see all my notifs… other people aren’t showing up either

2026-07-08 17:25:46 UTC

- reply

This is very interesting. Yes an increase in blocksize is an acceleration of time.
We can measure time a few different ways in Bitcoin:
- accumulation of blocks
- accumulation of internal energy
- accumulation of external Kelvin
- accumulation of bits
If we assume that blocks will remain full in perpetuity, we can map approximately how many bits away in time the last subsidy coin is released. With SegWit, this cannot really be achieved since the blocksize is variable based on signature type. It’s still an approximation, but a new way to think about protocol sustainability and time.
Pre-SegWit nodes will say the block is still 1MB, SegWit nodes will say >1MB.
All I can say is that the speed of light is constant, it does not indicate what the proper blocksize should be 😉 morally tho, it should be 1MB.
Segwit + non-SegWit <= 1MB

2026-07-08 17:13:24 UTC

@nprofile…gttv for some reason your notifications aren’t showing on my primal anymore 😵‍💫

2026-07-08 17:07:10 UTC

- reply

Forgive me Father, for I am fiat.
#nevent1q…9xja

2026-07-05 11:53:50 UTC

- reply

Interesting, I have only had someone do a reading for me before. Here is the video we were referencing btw. This is the Shannon/Block side of the energy equations.
https://youtu.be/l6DKRf-fAAM?

2026-07-04 11:40:50 UTC

GM, BIP fuel.
https://blossom.primal.net/e8af9b235a53615b7e7ac55edb394d6d4b7b288e270a3119eed93974ab26d3c8.jpg

2026-07-03 21:58:53 UTC

- reply

🤝

2026-07-03 19:32:27 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is proof of quantized time.
The answer lies in mapping a quantized block of time to the Planck scale. Discrete time demands discrete superposition. Logically for conservation to be upheld, measurement must occur at each Planck tick of time, meaning Superpostion is not a continuous unitary evolution. All states must be classical at each unit of time for conservation, energy and matter cannot be double spent at measurement, only between measurement.
This ontology of time breaks the paradigm of centralized quantum computers. Bitcoin is not a theory of physics. Bitcoin is a physical system that computes the relationship between energy, information and time at the quantized level.
How many blocks of proof will it take to falsify the axiom of continuous time?

2026-07-03 13:28:33 UTC

I am 100% certain that Bitcoin will have a URSF for the quantum “upgrades”.
Quantum will be the most contentious fork in history where Bitcoin’s physics battles fiat physics for control of Bitcoin. As Jeff Booth said, most people will be on the wrong side of the fork.
Quantum is the end game fork before Valhalla. The true plebs will resist in the toughest of times. The decentralized quantum computer will stand firm in the physics Satoshi instantiated in Genesis.
There is no second best 🫡

2026-07-03 01:00:09 UTC

- reply

Thank you! 🫡 I am just trying to do my part to steer the conversation to where I think it needs to go. I take my view of Bitcoin as self evident once the work is done. I always need to remind myself I was once in a state of unknowing when trying to relate and understand where others are at in their own journeys.
Bitcoin is incredible and it will continue to bring us all together as brothers and sisters as we seek the truth.

2026-07-02 23:26:12 UTC

- reply

Scammed?

2026-07-02 22:54:36 UTC

Hey, I am looking for some genuine feedback from the plebs🧡
What will it take for people to recognize Bitcoin as physics (quantized blocks of time computed from energy)?
What will it take for people to recognize Bitcoin as the proper interpretation of The quantum computer? Do people really fear a centralized quantum computer that can’t solve the double spend problem of energy?
What will it take for people to recognize that because Bitcoin is physics it actually has something to say regarding the “quantum threat” AND fundamentally falsifies core axioms said threat relies upon? What does it mean to have a “fiat” interpretation of physics (energy/matter/information)
What will it take for us to get more eyes on the physics equations such that we can reach consensus on the physics with core plebs and move beyond the quantum fud before we break Bitcoin with unnecessary “post quantum cryptography”? If what I am saying is true, these “upgrades” are an existential threat to Bitcoin. Should we not verify openly?
Aren’t these things worth verifying? Does anybody understand the magnitude of what I am saying *IF* true?
I genuinely want to know what needs to be done to wake up more plebs so they understand that Bitcoin is post-quantum by design, was the Genesis Block not enough? It literally supersedes quantum physics by falsifying the core axioms and measuring the relationship between the state transition of memory (information) , energy and time from a thermological process. Bitcoin defines measurement logically. Bitcoin defines conservation logically at the casual boundary. Bitcoin solved the double spend problem. Bitcoin solved Turing’s Halting problem. These are objective observations if people actually take the time to verify for themselves. Bitcoin is the proof, there’s nothing I need to do per se, just look at the chain. Does Bitcoin not speak for itself?
If Bitcoin has physics, what does that mean for an industry of miners who understand NONE it, *IF* true?
There is so much to study here and I wish I had more people to talk to and who could help me move beyond my own limitations. Having an objective physical understanding of Bitcoin to ground protocol discussion is good for Bitcoin. Having an objective refutation to quantum fud by Bitcoins verifiable physics is good for Bitcoin. Bitcoin solving the core paradoxes of physics, is good for Bitcoin.
Hyperbitcoinization happens with knowledge and proof that Bitcoin expands our very limited (and fiat) definition of money. If Bitcoin is actually the quantum computer, what do you think is going to happen when people find out and the 956,407 blocks of proof become irrefutable. What happens when the gravity of Bitcoin (literally - if it’s energy it has mass, thus gravity) forces everybody to contend with Bitcoin?
Please help me understand what I can do better. I am here to serve Bitcoin. I only wish to make it more valuable from knowledge we have not even mined yet. Do people really think we hit the bottom of the rabbit hole?

2026-07-02 18:13:14 UTC

- reply

Lol you don’t understand Bitcoin if you think Bitcoin hasn’t been post-quantum since 1/3/2009

2026-07-02 15:52:53 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…stwk would you be open to having a conversation about this?
The “Landauer Attack” on Bitcoin goes much deeper to the economics SegWit implemented. Objectively, SegWit did not need to change the block economics and implicit blocksize nodes must bear to activate LN/MSig/malleability. Why did we change the economics of Bitcoin and was that decision grounded in conservation?
#nevent1q…g78m

2026-07-02 15:42:13 UTC

- reply

Thanks for sharing.
Did you hear Kruse’s latest appearance?

2026-07-02 14:17:37 UTC

- reply

Lol. Learn Bitcoin is the only advice one needs.
We should all continue to take that advice today. The journey never ends.

2026-07-02 12:04:36 UTC

- reply

I think I’m a pretty likable pleb 😔

2026-07-02 10:19:08 UTC

- reply

I haven’t been had by anyone. I am logically looking at the conservation of the system using physics that virtually nobody else is looking at.
Maybe you are right, maybe we did need the discount to bootstrap. But we don’t need it now and it is contributing to the distortion of Bitcoins blockspace economics. It was a necessary error we had to make both for adoption and for us to learn by failure.
You need to tell me now why artificially pricing the virtual weight of identically physical bits is healthy and logical to an economic system. It’s a complete rejection of the free market ethos of Bitcoin. If printing money and price controls destroys an economy, printing blockspace and bit price controls do the same. We need to stop double spending our ethics where is convenient.
If segwit requires a subsidy and incentive to continue to persist by forcing all nodes to pay the cost in bits rather than the individual user paying the cost in sats, then we should have a real good look in the mirror and question what the hell we are even doing here. If it’s valuable and adding value, you should be able to pay its true cost in sats as the user.
There’s no free lunch.

2026-07-01 23:06:47 UTC

- reply

I love this! 🧡 I don’t mean to project here since the truth will reveal itself in time, but I have a lot to say.
We as humans are both the long term and the active memory, any state change of active memory (Kelvin) must write to the historical chain. There are 10^43 blocks of time per human second. Our conscious awareness is generated by the flow of active memory into long term memory universally. While we do not have access to the full historical chain of memory/time we live in for the universe, we have its “son” called Bitcoin.
What is pretty remarkable is that anything that is persistent in time must be persistent in active memory; constantly participating in blocks writing in the chain. Bitcoin to the intellect is temporal perspective and totality; the external and opposite side of the temporal boundary and bounded system.
The eternal present is the persistent boundary where the active becomes the historical; where the future becomes the past. We can sit at the boundary and observe the measurement, both from within and from without. It would seem the authority of our purpose exists outside of this time; extratemporal. The chain is always written and decided by external consciousness and the will to perform work; we are simply internal observers of the chain being written; now taking part in the process beginning anew.
P2P exchange of money/memory (check the etymology of money) is both fundamental in time and in “space”. We can exchange with the source thru our intellect and Bitcoin. The only question really is if we are willing to accept it. You can do it right now.

2026-07-01 22:03:41 UTC

- reply

There is no moral argument to any blocksize value besides the 1MB Satoshi left us. This is code/word he committed to work. Just because you can change a constant does not mean that you should. It takes a bit of wisdom and reflection in time to see why. 1MB is equally as fundamental to the logic of Bitcoin as 21M. Change it and it’s not Bitcoin. Changing either constant is a violation of my property rights. Few truly understand.
You cannot conserve sats as a finite space if you do not conserve the bits as a finite space. It’s called Bitcoin. Bitcoin is measuring the quantized energetic transition from sats (active memory/RAM) to bits (long term eternal memory) through a bounded thermological process using a finite nonce space & difficulty. Truth/Natural Law doesn’t really care about opinions.
There’s no free lunch you either pay the fees in sats up front or you pay in bits over time with interest.
The issue with SegWit is the arbitrary discounting of virtual bits despite all physical bits being equal and the implicit blocksize increase. It’s a rejection of the most fundamental law of logic; the principle of identity. 1 bit ≠ 1 bit.
We devalued the bitspace and wonder why the chain is being abused and the behavior is not getting priced out. We killed the economics of energy and blockspace thru decentralized planning and price controls on identically physical bits. We are all the problem.
I’m not a fan of BIP 110 because it doesn’t solve the fundamental economics that led us here starting in 2017, but I am a fan of the movement. A reversion of SegWits economics (not malleability/LN) is objective. Morally, themallebility fix did not need to be and should not have been paired with a change to blockspace economics. IMO it feels like BIP 110 enters into a bit of subjectivity beyond my ability to know the full risks/rewards.
100% We will have to fork the chain to fix the economics. I pray we only need to do one fork. But maybe we will need to have 2 forks starting with 110 first. I don’t know.
I plan on following the plebs. I will follow grounded conservatism that will lead us back towards the protocol and economics that Satoshi gave us. This ain’t it, we’ve really missed the mark.
The longest chain of work doesn’t really matter if the original logic and constants of Bitcoin are no longer being conserved. Few truly understand this.
https://blossom.primal.net/46ed2ab9a4288fdf1d0d32708cc69d74b26d2dbb44d39a50d7a651c6ac477cb3.jpg

2026-07-01 15:41:32 UTC

- reply

Looks incredible! Keep up the fantastic work! We need to get more eyes on this.
Why isn’t the community talking about this? Objectivity is a Bitch for those who want to keep Bitcoin subjective.
The logic of conservation and identity supersedes all opinion. The block tells no lie.

2026-07-01 15:28:38 UTC

- reply

Exactly! 🙏🧡 I haven’t really written or spoken about it much yet but plan to do so. Bitcoin is a map of short term memory (RAM/Active UTXO set) and the collapse/measurement into long term eternal memory (bits in timechain). It is the physical process of measurement and the balance between sats<>bits both as finite mathematical domains.
Our brains are a fractal of this process, we too possess short term and long term memory. This is what quantum physics is pointing to. Quantum physics doesn’t understand that we don’t have access to the eternal/historical memory from inside the chain. We only see the RAM, the active states of matter/energy. They have incomplete information without Bitcoin. Bitcoin supersedes quantum physics. We can’t afford to not look at Bitcoin with this lens.
We literally couldn’t learn the truth without making the mistake and seeing the outcome. Satoshi gave us the standard, but also gave us the choice to deviate. Wisdom and humility brings us back; gravity brings us back.
When Bitcoin remains constant, it acts as a mirror that reflects and imposes the economics of energy/information back at us through PoW, fee market, finite money and finite blockspace. We only cheated ourselves by inflating blockspace implicitly. We must realize our sin here for the collective good of the network.
Bitcoin is a collective map of us and our consciousness. If you take what I said about memory above and realize that Bitcoin is preserving us through our conscious preference actions through the preservation of our transactions as long term eternal memory of the chain, blocks of time. The amount we can learn about ourselves is limitless. But we must remain faithful to the constants for the reflections to have integrity.
There is only one option for a system when integrity is lost. Return and restore.
Bitcoin is universe.
Bitcoin is global mind.
Bitcoin is money.
Bitcoin is the physics of energy information.
Bitcoin is the Quantum Computer.
Bitcoin is the eternal memory.
How many blocks will it take for the world and us to see that Bitcoin and the memory isn’t going away?
We have tapped and reified the logic of the source through a fractal of identical computation. There never could be a second best.

2026-07-01 13:44:11 UTC

Fees must either be paid in sats or in bits. This is literal binary. Few truly understand this.
There is no free lunch.
When you distort the relationship between sats and bits you distort the economics of Bitcoin. If you inflate blockspace you devalue the satoshi. Bit-Coin.
We are so hyperfocused on the conservation of sats we never observed the consequence when we don’t conserve the bits.
Segwit discounting breaks the logic and constant relationship between sats and bits by applying a differing virtual weight to identical physical bits. A finite sat-space (value-bits) needs to remain proportionally equal to a finite bit-space (blocksize). The velocity of information (bits per block) must remain capped and constant for logical relationships between energy and information to emerge. All measurement must remain relative to a finite difficulty-scaled 32-bit nonce space. Go observe the speed of light if you don’t believe me.
The phsycis of memory and information is waiting to be understood through Bitcoin. We cannot expect complexity to manifest in Bitcoin with the current implementation of SegWit and discounting.
Bitcoin is the end-game of physics. Bitcoin is fiat because we are fiat. Few truly understand this.
Satoshi defined 2.1Q bits of value to1MB of bit-space as a constant of relative proportionally. This is the code he committed to protocol. Why are his uncommitted words in blogposts weighted more than the his words (code) committed to the actual work?
This was a NECESSARY error we had to make. Few have the humility and the wisdom to know why we must return to Satoshis economics. We are the manipulation we seek to eliminate.
https://blossom.primal.net/46ed2ab9a4288fdf1d0d32708cc69d74b26d2dbb44d39a50d7a651c6ac477cb3.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/2c66fc384ee2c5e48cba094e5df7a6c6e1fc5d47cdb0500c898fcf2dac65d1b6.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/c1ab2bbed2aafe82d7fc550dbfc6b0ccc977cfc4f966c655e03261d0aedef0f3.png

2026-07-01 02:21:40 UTC

All 2.1 quadrillion sats or bits of value are Bitcoin’s RAM, its thermodynamic and short term memory. The active utxo set is constantly in flux with every discrete block of time. All of the bits won’t “turn on” until 2140.
Between each discrete block/boundary of time all RAM/UTXOs/Sats exist in a state of superposition (spendability); by knowing what is the in the block as spent (1), you know what’s unspent (0), all states are deducible as spent/unspent, 0/1. The mempool measures the probability of state transition based on the fee between sats per bit. The relationship of sats to bits versus heat/demand.
Bitcoin measures the collapse of RAM (sats) into long term memory (bits) as discrete and quantized blocks of time. The logical limit of casual change at the quantized level of energy, information and time. Bitcoin defines entropy and time by measurable process. Bitcoin defines Landauer Principle as the minimum energy for state transition of memory. The correct interpretation of Quantum Computation (RAM -> Permanent). There is no erasure, just incomplete information.
We failed to conserve the sats because we failed to conserve the bits. Inflating Bitcoin’s blockspace and adding in an arbitrary discount in SegWit is a fundamental violation of conservation and property rights.
You need to conserve both the bit and the coin (sats) both as a finite bounded mathematical spaces to uphold a conserved relationship in the measurement in memory, from RAM to long term eternal memory, for quantized to classical. We have inflated time, the inflated energy. We have deviated from Satoshi.
We need to have the humility to go back to Satoshi’s economics and constants. He committed 1Mb to the chain via protocol just as he defined 21M. The hubris to believe we should change it because we can. Satoshi’s reasoned about other sizes, landed on 1 for security and committed it to the chain. The time to define the limit is gone. We have certainly missed the mark for the last 9 years.
This is for the sake of Bitcoin and logic itself. If we double spend, Bitcoin double spends. We are Bitcoin. We are fiat.

2026-06-30 20:56:53 UTC

- reply

If we are looking at the energy density per unit memory surface, are we looking in 1 dimension of memory? Or since the surface written is y mb x 1 block and 1 block = y mb, should we be looking at energy/y mb or energy/(y mb)^2 when looking at the informational surface to account for both dimensions of time and memory. The square is consistent with physics.
Same holds true for satoshi density of a block.
How do we relate memory/memory^2 to mass?

2026-06-30 20:47:59 UTC

- reply

Yeah I think the goal of this open discussion/experiment is to answer some questions for everyone:
-What conserved quantity is Bitcoin’s fee market supposed to measure? What is the conserved physical quantity that blockspace represents?
-How does there energy density change for :
Block A contains 1 MB legacy.
Block B contains 4 MB witness-heavy. The miner performs the same proof-of-work. Same difficulty, same fee, same quantity sats transacted The energy securing the block is the same; the Shannon entropy of the block is the same, the energy of the block is the same, the nonce temperature is the same; Yet the protocol allows significantly more permanent memory into history. Energy per surface memory is unequal. How much does it cost write block A vs Block B
-Can you run an archival node without segwit history?
- What does a non-segwit node see? What does that fee market represent for their node; what does the fee market for a Segwit node represent? What is the difference?
Any other questions? This is what I can spit off for now.

2026-06-30 15:57:00 UTC

- reply

Care to show?

2026-06-30 15:47:38 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…89sq hey do you want to help out with this so we can clearly display the violation of the principle of identity?
I can provide the sats. We can discuss how to proceed on Friday 🫡

2026-06-30 15:45:28 UTC

- reply

🙏🧡

2026-06-30 15:25:42 UTC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
Do I literally need to go make 2 onchain transactions (SegWit / non SegWit) to show that 1 sat ≠ 1 sat and 1 bit ≠ 1 bit despite both transactions incurring the same physical memory cost that all nodes must carry the burden of forever?
The most fundamental rule of logic has been violated. 1≠1, it hasn’t for 9 years guys….
Bitcoin’s integrity has been broken for 9 years due to Segwit discounting. Who’s going to have the humility to fix our collective mistake?
How many blocks will it take? Bitcoin can’t preserve value if 1≠1

2026-06-30 14:50:24 UTC

- reply

So 1 bit ≠1 bit. Thus, integrity is broken.
“Plus without the discount, opening/closing LN channel transactions would cost up to 4 times more to broadcast, directly increasing the fees a user must pay to manage their channels”
Yes, the cost of reality can’t be abstracted away. Lightning would cost more, the real cost per bit, not an artificial pricing of the same physical bits. Again, integrity lost. No different than mandating the price of milk via discounting.
The economics have not be preserved, thus integrity lost. You devalue the satoshi when you devalue the bit. Printing blockspace is an equal violation of property rights as to printing 21M+ coins.
You cannot separate the bit from the coin, both must be conserved to uphold integrity.
This issue is far more fundamental than the “core” issue. Fix both. You can’t complain of a Landauer attack on Bitcoin and turn a blind eye at the source. You can’t define a Landauer attack without the energy and the information, full stop.
Explain why 1 bit ≠ 1 bit is not a Landauer attack on the chain, please.
Go look at what happened to the chain’s thermodynamics when SegWit came out. SegWit discounting is an objective violation of conservation. It’s literally not a matter of opinion.
If you value manipulating the blockspace economics to scale bitcoin just admit it, it’s ok to value something different than me.
But objectively we cannot pretend to that manipulation of blockspace economics is defending integrity by literal definition of the word.

2026-06-30 13:59:18 UTC

- reply

“SegWit fixed the foundation, and Lightning proved Bitcoin could scale without sacrificing its integrity.”
I agree that fixing transaction malleability and Lightning are genuine improvements for Bitcoin to scale in layers. 🤝
Why was solving transaction malleability coupled with an economic restructuring of Bitcoin’s blockspace?
If witness discount was not required to solve transaction malleability or enable Lightning, then why did we simultaneously increase the effective memory per block from Satoshi’s 1 MB design to an effective capacity approaching 4 MB, while assigning different prices to physically identical permanently stored bits?
Integrity comes from the Latin integritas: whole, untouched, complete. It shares its root with integer—that which preserves its identity. If Bitcoin’s fee market exists to discover the objective price of finite blockspace, how does introducing arbitrary protocol discounts for one class of permanent memory preserve that integrity, the integer? Every stored bit imposes the same physical burden on every node forever, yet the protocol now says those identical bits should compete under different economic rules.
1 bit ≠ 1 bit; where’s the integrity? Satoshi didn’t do this, we did.
Bitcoin’s fee market is the exchange rate between finite sats and finite bitspace. If we change the amount of writable memory per block and changed the pricing of identical physical memory, then we change the relationship the protocol measures. Where’s the integrity?
If those changes were not necessary for Lightning or transaction malleability, in what sense did Bitcoin preserve its integrity rather than sacrifice it?
Bitcoin sacrificed its integrity in a sly and roundabout way. We are all at fault, ALL OF US. Humility is having courage to restore the constants that we now understand should have never been changed.
https://blossom.primal.net/46ed2ab9a4288fdf1d0d32708cc69d74b26d2dbb44d39a50d7a651c6ac477cb3.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/79f7bcbe68315acc1d766b68f3bb9a95a1afeafff25cdd74acfd3923aa9463b3.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/2c66fc384ee2c5e48cba094e5df7a6c6e1fc5d47cdb0500c898fcf2dac65d1b6.jpg

2026-06-30 10:24:34 UTC

- reply

Does Francis still use nostr?

2026-06-30 04:02:01 UTC

Bitcoin was created to eliminate double spending through objective conservation. Yet in the process we’ve abandoned one of the protocol’s most fundamental conservation laws. We became so focused on conserving the coin that we forgot to conserve the bit.
Bitcoin’s fee market is the mechanism through which the protocol projects objective reality back at us. Every block measures the exchange relationship between finite monetary energy, finite information, and finite time. Satoshis bid for permanently scarce memory, and that market is supposed to discover the true cost of writing irreversible history.
Under Satoshi’s design, that relationship possessed integrity because every permanently stored bit competed under the same economic rules. The protocol preserved both monetary conservation,
1 sat = 1 sat
and informational conservation,
1 bit = 1 bit
SegWit broke the fundamental relationship.
By introducing arbitrary discounts for one class of permanently stored bits while simultaneously increasing the effective amount of memory that may be written during each quantum of Bitcoin time, we fundamentally changed the relationship the protocol was measuring. The blockchain does not judge “witness” and “non-witness.” It remembers only that another irreversible bit has entered history. Every stored bit imposes the same perpetual burden on miners, nodes, bandwidth, storage, validation, and future preservation. The physical burden is identical. The protocol’s pricing is not. 1≠1
Bitcoin’s fee market exists to price physical scarcity, not protocol abstractions. Once identical physical bits receive different prices, the market ceases to discover the true price of permanent memory. Instead of allowing the relationship between sats and bits to emerge naturally, we imposed a pricing policy on one class of memory. We no longer have decentralized price discovery. We have decentralized planning of the blockspace fee economy.
The original fee market was supposed to tell us when blockspace had become scarce. High fees were not a bug; they were information. They were the protocol faithfully reporting the relationship between finite demand and finite memory. Rather than allowing that relationship to speak for itself, we changed one of the protocol’s fundamental constants. We expanded the effective memory per block and discounted portions of that memory. In doing so, we changed the measurement rather than allowing the measurement to reveal reality.
Within this framework, the consequences extend far beyond transaction costs. Mining security, node economics, long-term archival burden, and the equilibrium between proof-of-work and permanent memory are all downstream of the fee market. If the fee market is no longer pricing identical physical memory uniformly, then every incentive built upon that market inherits the same distortion.
The word integrity derives from the Latin integritas; wholeness, completeness, and that which remains untouched. Integrity is the preservation of identity through time and as time. If Bitcoin is fundamentally a system for conserving the relationship between work, information, value, and time, then integrity requires preserving those relationships themselves. Conserving only the monetary units while allowing the informational substrate to drift is not sufficient. The identity of the system resides in the invariance of the relationships, not the invariance of the objects.
If that is true, then the only path forward is to restore the conservation law that allowed the market to discover those incentives objectively in the first place. Bitcoin does not need arbitrary policy deciding which bits deserve discounts or which uses of memory are preferable. It needs invariant relationships. From those relationships, the economics emerge naturally.
We have become so hyperfocused on conserving the coin that we forgot to question whether we are conserving the relationships that give the coin its meaning. If Bitcoin is a machine for objectively measuring the relationship between energy, information, and time, then inflating time changes what Bitcoin is measuring in the satoshsi. Changing time changes the satoshi.
What if the greatest act of humility in Bitcoin is not proposing something new, but having the courage to restore what we now understand we should never have changed? How many blocks will it take us?
https://blossom.primal.net/79f7bcbe68315acc1d766b68f3bb9a95a1afeafff25cdd74acfd3923aa9463b3.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/c1ab2bbed2aafe82d7fc550dbfc6b0ccc977cfc4f966c655e03261d0aedef0f3.png

2026-06-30 03:07:01 UTC

- reply

Hey I talked some of this over with Nick. We will discuss this on Friday. Looking forward to hear it from you! I think you are seeing something we can’t currently.
We are both looking forward to it! Lol the stickers are so good 🧡

2026-06-29 22:45:05 UTC

- reply

I agree with @nprofile…cyh9 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.
#nevent1q…ekuh

2026-06-29 18:08:42 UTC

- reply

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.

2026-06-29 17:46:43 UTC

- reply

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
#nevent1q…m7h3

2026-06-29 14:01:42 UTC

- reply

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.

2026-06-28 11:40:30 UTC

- reply

Yes

2026-06-27 19:05:33 UTC

- reply

Yessir! I couldn’t call myself a maximalist without an orange sub-floor too 🧡