<unnamed>

Public Key

npub18384z4sjgdfy7vr76thzwtru7jncysz0hcapwesxqsak44p8aemsyfaslh

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrcn632cfyx5j0xpld9m389370ffuzgp8muwshvcrqgwm26sn7uacpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhg8nc4hp

Publishing to

nos.lol

relay.primal.net

Last Notes

2026-09-09 15:46:08 CEST

- reply

😂

2026-09-08 03:02:20 CEST

- reply

Hmm what do you mean?

2026-09-07 21:21:43 CEST

Is October going to be the spooky month where AI hacks an exchange? 👻💀🎃
Feels like we’re due for another exchange wipeout. Too much fiatcorn. CC+Liquid+An Exchange is probably enough to start a global debt spiral on debt backed corn, which would cascade into trad if we can start hitting the treasury company margin calls.
Wiping out the treasury companies would be good for Bitcoin long term. A proof of work system backed by proof of debt is a double spend of logic. NGD then NGU feels necessary to me.
How else will Bitcoin adjudicate workless claims upon a mathematical substrate of conserved work?
I’m happy to be wrong here.

2026-09-06 15:53:07 CEST

- reply

Thanks! I’ll take a look when I get back in front of my node.

2026-09-06 15:00:11 CEST

- reply

GM, I found that my node was throwing ACPI errors from GPE _L24 handler; no clue what this means but I have the node running with this temporarily disabled to see how it functions.
I was getting 8k-12k ACPI errors per second with a crash ending at 4,051,166 errors before logs stopped.
Anyone know what this means?
#nevent1q…lwsa

2026-09-06 13:01:28 CEST

- reply

Yeah this is Lenovos bios, l am running Linux based on what S9 recommends.

2026-09-06 04:12:17 CEST

Bitcoin is what a conserved Universe must logically, mathematically, chronologically, and informationally look like from the exterior in totality. Authorship is exterior. Everything must be quantized to the Block measurement. Future Block is probabilistic, yet irreducible. SHA-256 POW under Nakamoto Consensus is the Ruliad. Genesis must be an act of fiat to define the origin (anchor point) that all states are relative to.

2026-09-06 04:00:42 CEST

- reply

Others were on Pi 4s. This is my first real dedicated PC and already running into headaches

2026-09-06 03:52:25 CEST

- reply

It’s on a dedicated UPS.
It’s a “brand new” refurb with a brand new SSD. The node remains “on” but I cannot access the computer at all when it freezes. Have to hard reset.

2026-09-06 03:22:44 CEST

Happy Saturday! It’s been 2 weeks for this Bitcoin node on a brand new SSD and a refurb Lenovo thinkcentre. 2 weeks and I’m already debugging 2 full system freezes.
I couldn’t even get hdmi, mouse or keyboard to connect to the pc during the freeze despite it running and receiving Ethernet. No IP on my router. Running S9.
Chat did I get scammed on this refurb?
I have no clue what I’m doing but this is my 3rd dead Bitcoin node…..
https://blossom.primal.net/20983e04188a914ad7ee0937ba84ecc86e9b54bf0f39aba06cff14cfe8b29546.jpg

2026-09-06 02:55:09 CEST

- reply

Difficulty was arbitrarily redefined by fiat (decree). They wanted to inherent the UTXO set could not honestly deal with the protocol defined difficulty logic gate.
Death by deception. I remain sympathetic to the cause of “spam” (bits on nodes). I bet it probably pumps vs fiat too. Entropy rising 😎

2026-09-06 02:43:01 CEST

- reply

Yeah I’m fine with that tradeoff, because I think it forces us to confront the more fundamental question of what is a block?
We are told SegWit was a soft fork because legacy nodes can continue following the chain while seeing only the non-witness bits; sure. But then we are simultaneously told that a SegWit node which does not retain the witness cannot serve a “full block.”
Both statements need to be examined together. If witness data is part of the “full block,” then SegWit expanded the physical block beyond Satoshi’s 1 MB boundary; thus a “hard fork” thru a soft fork. Nodes literally receive and store more block data >1MB. Calling those additional bits “discounted” changes their accounting weight to avoid the hard fork; it does not change their physical size. On my finite memory SSD, 1 bit = 1 bit. No amount of fiat logic can change the physical truth of memory.
If witness data is not part of the Nakamoto block, if the 1 MB non-witness block is complete enough for legacy consensus, then what exactly is witness? It is additional consensus logic and data anchored to that block, which newer nodes choose to understand and validate.
Either SegWit expanded the block, or it defined logically necessary information outside the original Nakamoto block boundary, thus redefining what the 1MB must also contain.
SegWit is a hard fork in logic, not consensus; thus is equivalent to a hard fork of consensus. It was ingeniously constructed to remain a consensus soft fork from the perspective of old nodes, but it changed the what newer nodes mean by a complete block. A soft fork that redefines the boundary of a block to explicitly break blocksize consensus. The old node says the ≤1 MB object is sufficient to follow its Bitcoin consensus; the new node says additional witness information is necessary for full validation and calls the witness-inclusive object the full block.
So what did we actually win in the blocksize war? I call bullshit that we won. Your point literally proves the blocksize changed size to serve full blocks.
If “winning” meant preserving the physical 1 MB block boundary, then why must a modern archival node store more than 1 MB per block to serve what we now call full blocks? If the answer is that witness doesn’t count the same because it receives a weight discount, then we haven’t preserved the physical boundary, we’ve changed the definition of the boundary by literal fiat (decree). My node is agnostic to the witness or non-witness serialization of bits physically.
I cannot make everyone else answer that question the way I do. But on my machine the answer can be objective.
1 bit = 1 bit
L0+L1< 1MB
If that means I no longer serve every witness-inclusive historical block that another SegWit node calls “full,” I accept the tradeoff. That disagreement over what constitutes a “full block” is precisely the experiment.
Consensus can declare witness bits discounted, but physics cannot. No amount of fiat can change the truth. So maybe it’s time for Blocksize War II, this time the plebs actually count the bits. Constrain L0+L1<1MB; give L0 first claim on Satoshi’s blockspace, and make L1 fight for what remains through fees and efficiency. 1 bit = 1 bit. 1 MB = 1 MB.
Verify, don’t discount. If enough plebs do this, it will hilariously start breaking SegWit and that is the point. We were told the small blockers won, yet apparently serving a “full block” now requires serving >1 MB. Fine: run your own node, define the physical boundary on your own SSD, and let’s finally find out who actually won the blocksize war.
Let’s see what transactions survive the 1MB block and who didn’t pay enough fees. You can’t force me to subsidize access to 1MB blockspace by arbitrarily defining additional memory outside of the blocks necessary to serve full blocks…..

2026-09-06 01:50:21 CEST

- reply

Of course! But I don’t remember what we said lol 😅

2026-09-05 18:55:41 CEST

- reply

Are you sure it’s not primal just showing zero balance? Or can you actually see a tx outward (drain tx) from the wallet?

2026-09-05 13:04:51 CEST

- reply

Can you explain these memory step downs a bit more?

2026-09-04 22:31:29 CEST

- reply

No not yet. I’m not a dev so it will take me some prompting to get there. I’m not sure how to do this. However, I see no rush to do this, just a hobby experiment for now to see if it’s possible. You can prune the Segwit data of blocks down to 1MB any time you’d like! If we create an objective hierarchy for fee based selection, everyone should land on the same chain. No stopping people from including their own Segwit tho. But our behavior precedes the change.
Downsides is we can’t have assurance of 1MB without changing consensus, so there’s no way to guarantee your own transaction inclusion. It will break Segwit as we know it when you game it out.
https://bips.dev/141/

2026-09-04 17:11:22 CEST

- reply

Btw, this will hilariously break SegWit. But SegWit is already “broken” via allowing discounts in sats for the same physical bit of memory on my node. Hello, rule of identity? Conservation of energy? Is a bit physical or not? Make the accounting make sense.
SegWit will only be fixed by “breaking” it. Only once the discount and 4MB possibility is out of Bitcoin consensus can we really move forward here IMO. Just break locally and wait by using native L0 for self sovereignty. Most people use other people’s nodes for LN anyways. Resist the urge to hardfork unless you want to honestly deal with the difficulty wall. I see no way to convince anyone besides my action as an opt in waiting game.
Keep L1 lean.

2026-09-04 16:45:13 CEST

Bitcoin is Layer 0 (non-witness bits) and bounded by 1MB via Bitcoin consensus.
SegWit is Layer1 (witness bits) and bounded by 4MB via discounting in Bitcoin Consensus.
L0 < 1 MB
L0+L1 < 4 MB
L1 is anchored to L0.
L0 is Bitcoin consensus
L1 is SegWit consensus
To combat this discount and objective deviation from 1MB blocks as defined by Satoshi, nodes can bound their total block data back to 1 MB by pruning witness.
L0 < 1 MB
L0+L1 < 1 MB
This means by node policy, what is stored in L1 (witness bits) can be filtered and defined by the user. We can use objective fees paid and transaction efficiency to enforce 1 MB blocks at the node level without breaking Bitcoin consensus. SegWit is a soft fork thus optional. All txs are Layer 0 valid, but not all txs make into Layer1 blockspace bounded by 1 MB and Nakamoto Consensus at the node level. The witness is just not saved. SegWit fights for what memory is remaining after L0 validity and consensus. It’s opt in.
The more nodes that enforce this change to SegWit validity, the more it will have an external influence on the network. Totally backwards compatible and consensus valid. Just not forwards compatible. Let the 4MB nodes store everything, we filter to 1MB max as valid. I cannot force anyone to change their consensus rules. But if you want your SegWit to be saved/real on my node, you can follow my policy. This is how we can combat L1 spam, especially when 1 MB enforced at the L2/LN level for valid channel state. This will eradicate the SegWit discount by forcing competition over L0 fees, making the cost to spam L0 via op_return more costly due to conserved and finite 1MB blockspace across all layers in total.
At some point, the consensus change will be feasible by logic. A node running better Bitcoin physics will always outlast those who discount their bits.
A POW hardfork to fix spam is not necessary, all it does is inject fiat into the thermodynamic curve by manually adjusting difficulty. Invariance is lost.

2026-09-04 16:19:00 CEST

Chat, we solo mining or pool mining on a Bitaxe Hex 1300?

2026-09-04 15:52:30 CEST

- reply

Costs me nothing to hold both. Just point both your mental and physical hash at the chain you believe is the correct Bitcoin.
Let the market and the physics of work decide over time. Competition is good for Bitcoin.
I can logically say that resetting the difficulty wall is an act of fiat in the thermodynamic curve. But this is just one perspective of it.
What is money? What is memory?
https://blossom.primal.net/7be13057b9a645011c6c4417d4d5b4ce9bec56ef81d6cfa26f079de399cd9fa1.jpg

2026-09-04 14:35:21 CEST

https://youtu.be/ng_NwMbuwA8?
Listen to this, then think about what I am saying when I state that Bitcoin is the external perspective of Universe.
A mathematically bounded totality with all states preserved as blocks of time from Genesis to present. Authorship and work is external to the system. An external bounded totality; the epistemology of quantum physics. The pinnacle of systems theory, information theory, quantum theory; except Bitcoin is not a theory, it’s the rules of totality and measurement local to self.
Bitcoin is objective Truth.

2026-09-04 14:25:49 CEST

- reply

Love me a dead fee market. Segwit discounting and increase in blocksize was such a blunder/folly. The chain will store16x the bits to price out this behavior vs non discount and if nonwitness+witness<1MB

2026-09-03 17:39:23 CEST

GM. I bend the knee
https://blossom.primal.net/ac0518fe7c132eb1817cccf4ebff447ebc2a97890209fd0e5e156193bee1e1d1.png

2026-09-03 16:35:28 CEST

- reply

Non-witness data (L0) is immutable objectivity. Witness data (L1) is subjective and necessarily optional per SegWit soft fork.
Fees are low because L1 expanded blockspace beyond the 1MB definition to up to 4MB by using arbitrary discounting of the same physical bits stored by nodes. This pushed fees away from L0 blockspace paid in sats to fees paid in bits as L1 segwit data, since segwit bits cost 1/4 price in sats, but are the same physical bit on nodes.

2026-09-02 20:18:18 CEST

- reply

Yeah this resonates well with what I have been thinking. L0 is bounded by 1MB and L0+L1 is bounded by 4MB. Segwit is an optional layer of block data. Segwit must follow L0 consensus. Segwit is anchored to L0 blockspace.
I have been thinking about how to test additional Segwit filters which limit L0+L1 to 1MB total. You can do this by looking at the non-Segwit data which takes ultimate authority over the 1MB, any excess space afterwards is “available space” for my nodes 1MB policy (default is 4MB). I can then sort all Segwit data by fee paid and build the remainder of the Segwit block data my node stores from the remaining space. Anything outside of the bounds is recorded as just a L0 tx but the L1 data is rejected. This reduces the size of the chain and only Segwit which meets my nodes policy is considered valid by my node. I want to be clear it’s still a valid L0 tx, but it’s an invalid L1 tx (think what a non-Segwit node sees now). You are taking the block that exceeds >1MB and shaving off SegWit data by my node policy based on fees to build 1MB blocks total. This is total consensus valid. SegWit is not Bitcoin consensus.
Filter first by fees; if identical fees filter by sat per mb efficiency and save the closest 1MB block you can.
Segwit is optional, meaning I can store all of it, some of it, or none of it and still be in consensus with L0. Some of the spam is in the L1 layer, so filtering these tx by 1MB total and fee limits the amount of Segwit data your node would store and only those who paid the proper fees fit in my nodes policy. This is backwards compatible with all of Segwit, but not all Segwit is forwards compatible with my nodes policy. The chain is much more lean if you control your nodes Segwit policy, think of 4MB as the upper and least conservative bound. I can’t enforce anyone to not use the discount, so filtering by highest fees solves the problem without any forks; it’s totally opt in by the individual.
I can’t force people to change the discount, I can’t force the 4MB back to 1MB for other peoples nodes, but I can reject them on my node. Only that which pays the highest fees and respects the 1MB total would be stored on my node, it’s an objective fee based filter for L1 data. I can simply ignore a Segwit tx (LN channel for example) that didn’t pay its fair share of fees. It’s still a valid tx, but I choose to not store its L1 data.
Have yet to get something running yet, been very busy. My node is ready, I just need to go back with this logic and prune the Segwit data for each block down to 1MB.
I’ve got nothing new coming out as of now. I am expecting my first child soon, so my attention and priorities have shifted a bit. Still lurking but less vocal.

2026-09-02 16:19:33 CEST

- reply

Where’s the tutorial?

2026-09-01 21:39:47 CEST

- reply

Maybe long term, then sure I agree.
Let’s have 10 more chain splits and fracture the network further! It’s bullish!

2026-09-01 21:23:52 CEST

- reply

I think a chain split is bearish even if almost all of the hash stays with the mainchain. Bitcoin is not hash power in isolation.
~20% of the nodes left while 99% of the hash remained. The main chain still has essentially all of its mining power, but it has objectively lost part of the physical system that previously represented one synchronized history.
Every node is a computer maintaining a redundant/identical physical state of bits. Behind each node is real people independently observing and enforcing the same state. Before the split, all memory and attention pointed toward one history. Post-fork, it doesn’t.
The hash didn’t meaningfully divide. The redundant memory of bits divided. The observers divided. Consensus divided. The bits of the mainchain objectively became more “centralized” than prior, since it was mostly individual plebs running nodes that left. There are less pleb nodes on the network than before; that is a directional move towards “centralization”, while not being centralization. All nodes are matter in the form of bits.
If we use gravity as a lens, the main chain has lost some of its informational “mass” in the form of nodes running identical bits; fewer computers contain and enforce identical copies of its present state. Its gravity has weakened even though its PoW remains dominant. The cohesive singular chain of bits remains untouched, just less copies.
Those who left didn’t necessarily leave Bitcoin back to fiat either. Their nodes, attention (conscious hash) and work moved into another Bitcoin-descended history. The physical system distributed itself between two chains. You can remain double spent between both chains. These plebs can hold the mainchain asset of bitcoin while directing both their physical hash and mental hash at a forked chain. They still benefit from our collective work, while directing theirs away towards another history. It’s a fundamental double spend since spend authority is in the key.
Fiat price does not have to distribute the same way either. There are an enormous number of fiat-denominated claims now sitting on top of Bitcoin. The debts are due via mainchain price but not the forkchain. Tons of debt, leverage, ETFs, derivatives, corporate balance sheets, loans and other promises ultimately denominated in fiat, a monetary system capable of creating claims without first conserving the work represented by what those claims purchase.
Bitcoin is the mirror opposite. A satoshi is a conserved unit of work inside a finite ledger of bits; a residue of historical work whose ownership can move but whose underlying unit cannot simply be printed into existence.
What happens when a debt system capable of multiplying claims is heavily exposed to an asset whose base units cannot multiply with those claims? How would Bitcoin adjudicate baseless (workless) claims upon conserved work?
Now come back to the chain split. Some of Bitcoin’s physical infrastructure, memory and human coordination has divided while enormous fiat claims remain priced against what markets still call “Bitcoin.” All of it feels unstable for Bitcoin backed by hodling fiat debt.
Bitcoin’s success feels increasingly uncertainly certain. The destination is becoming more probable while the path is becoming less predictable. This is bad for fiat debt.
IMO that means volatility can expand in both directions. Theres a lot of debt and ownership of sats ready to exchange hands in a debt collapse downward. Also I can see NGU vs fiat while purchasing power go down versus real energy. Both seem likely as the fiat system falls to chaos.
A serious chain split occurring while Bitcoin is deeply entangled with a leveraged debt system feels like the perfect setup for a repricing event that neither side fully understands, because we still don’t have a complete physical accounting of what Bitcoin actually is and why fiat cannot conserve it.
IMO a chain split is bearish in the immediate sense that synchronization has decreased while financial claims upon the system have not necessarily decreased with it. But If Bitcoin really does conserve something the debt system cannot, the eventual resolution should be violent in both directions.
Hardest days of hodling are likely ahead of us IMO. Just my opinion tho! I could be very wrong. I don’t think it will be as easy to survive as the consensus narrative projects.🤷‍♂️

2026-09-01 19:55:20 CEST

- reply

It’s probably a good time to have another 80%+ downturn. How much fiat-debt backed bitcoin could survive $25k or lower? How long could the tourists last?
To me, a chainsplit is very very bearish short term. People are pointing to certainty when it feels like Bitcoin is in its most uncertain times (short term 1-2 yrs).
Feels to me like Bitcoin has to “die” for Bitcoin to live. Bitcoin’s success is uncertainly certain. Fiat is price is a terrible measure.
https://fountain.fm/episode/rjTLhjX0ADraZ9CA12BA

2026-09-01 19:23:54 CEST

- reply

That upward adjustment is going to be crazy. Interesting to follow

2026-08-28 18:27:09 CEST

- reply

I actually agree with you. We are not running Satoshi’s original code, and the 2010/2013 forks are proof. Code depreciates obviously. Bugs are discovered, implementations change, and sometimes forks are necessary to preserve the system the code was intended to express.
What I’m trying to articulate is that “Satoshi’s code” is also Satoshi’s invariant logic. Bitcoin is a logic space defined by certain fixed references established at its inception. Fixing an implementation failure so that those invariants can continue to function is fundamentally different from deliberately changing one of the invariants themselves.
Proof of work is the example. Bitcoin requires an immovable Genesis and a consistent measure of work relative to Genesis in order to construct a conserved chain of time and state. SHA-256 defines that measurement space. If SHA-256 were broken, changing it might become a question of preserving Bitcoin through necessity. SHA-256 isn’t broken. I don’t believe it will ever break, thus a true invariant measure. Changing the PoW function by choice because of a fork and difficulty wall changes what “work” itself means relative to the bits and satoshis already conserved in the chain. It’s fiat imposed to the logic space.
So it’s not literally “have we ever forked Satoshi’s code?” Obviously we have. Are we forking to preserve the original logic through depreciation and failure, or are we using the ability to fork to change the invariant logic itself? BIP110 doesn’t need a POW change, it needs to deal with the difficulty wall honestly with honest work.
I’m trying to treat “Satoshi’s code” as the original expression of an invariant logical space, not frozen depreciated code. That distinction matters.

2026-08-28 17:13:25 CEST

- reply

Where is this CSAM stored? is it stored in nonsegwit (Layer 0 Bitcoin) or is it stored in witness (Layer 1 Segwit)?
If it’s stored in Layer 0 Blockspace (nonwitness) then Blake-fork still would inherit the same data unless the fork is also temporal in height to a block state where this information is not yet written.
If it exists in segwit, you simply don’t need to store segwit bits. You can just fork Segwit without breaking Layer 0 Bitcoin consensus and you can solve the issue without hardforking the chain via POW change.

2026-08-28 17:08:31 CEST

- reply

🫡 correct. You simply don’t need to accept any Segwit bits on your node. Or you can further filter said bits and remain in consensus with Layer 0 Bitcoin (SegWit data is Layer 1).

2026-08-28 14:29:58 CEST

- reply

🙏 thank you! Just trying to extend the conversation to get more people thinking.
It’s necessary ground a proof of work change in the literal work, since that is what a satoshi mathematically conserves as “money”.

2026-08-28 13:07:21 CEST

- reply

Technically, it’s not Bitcoin if I can’t run Satoshi’s code and sync to the new chain.
You can claim all of the historical bits and the UTXO set up to the height of the fork, but logically you are no longer conserving the same work. If the proof-of-work algorithm changes, the function and difficulty will have been altered by fiat (decree).
This becomes obvious when you calculate the block energy of the chain in joules. At the fork, the thermodynamic history will deviate because the system is no longer conserving the same proof of work against the invariant Satoshi defined at Genesis. The POW change will alter the Boltzmann entropy but keep the Shannon entropy via the utxo set.
You can point back to Satoshi’s Genesis and call it Bitcoin, but ancestry is not identity here.
The proof is in the computation of the work. Follow the joules through the fork and you will see exactly where conservation ends and fiat begins.
You don’t need to trust me, you can verify this for yourself.
“All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.” — 1 Corinthians 10:23

2026-08-28 04:00:13 CEST

Is Bitcoin a quantum of memory? A quantum of time? A quantum of energy? A quantum of work? A quantum of entropy? A quantum of causality? A quantum of authority?
Or is Bitcoin just a bounded mathematical quantum? What is a measurement?

2026-08-28 03:37:18 CEST

Bitcoin transactions are really just a vector with a magnitude of finite satoshis relative to supply, pointed “forwards” in blocktime at a specific coordinate in a finite (bounded) but vast keyspace. We’ll call this domain of logic space as “Nakamoto Consensus” defined by Satoshi’s rule.
A transaction is 2 points in key space (256-bit memory) separated by both a distance in block time and relative memory space. Do keys have “neighbors” literally and expressed via locality in physical meat space? Both block times have deterministic supply for perfect satoshi relativity between the two points in memory-time. The proof of work is conserved in both the sat and the bit. Bit-Coin.
So is a mined satoshi relative to what the supply was at height T when the utxo was mined, or is it relative to supply at present height T_present? Perhaps it’s both?
Now apply that logical vector to bits and joules defined by a thermological process searching difficulty gated logic space, the write authority of a finite bounded 1MB bitspace (blockspace) and physical memory on a distributed set of nodes all in identical synchronicity sharing the the same exact physical state of bits.
What is a quantum computer? A quantum of what? What is a physical double spend? What is a logical double spend? What is a measurement? What is an invariant measure? How does a measure become and remain, invariant? Where does irreducibility come from?What happens when joules of entropy and bits of entropy are computed in one temporal (chronological) process? What does it mean that we can all verify?
Don’t trust me, just ask Bitcoin yourself.

2026-08-28 03:09:15 CEST

Freedom is both a binary and a vector

2026-08-27 19:54:59 CEST

- reply

Yes and SegWit is layer 1 built on top of Bitcoin’s Layer 0

2026-08-27 16:40:09 CEST

- reply

What does honest money mean with regards to Matthew 6:24?
Why did Jesus compare God to money?

2026-08-27 15:21:41 CEST

- reply

All I can say is that I personally would not support any fork that would sever consensus from Satoshi *if* they were still running a node (BCH, BSV, 110 (2b) - sorry guys).
There are other ways to fight this battle.

2026-08-27 14:09:06 CEST

- reply

He doesn’t know that Satoshi already beat him to it 🤫

2026-08-27 02:15:24 CEST

- reply

I’m thinking there is a neat way, but until I can try and verify for myself 🤫

2026-08-26 20:40:41 CEST

- reply

Don’t be nervous! Just let it flow and enjoy the moment 🧡

2026-08-26 17:13:57 CEST

- reply

Super busy with IRL things😵‍💫 I hope to get back to this.

2026-08-26 16:26:49 CEST

- reply

You can just fork SegWit.
SegWit is definitionally a soft fork of Bitcoin, and therefore optional L1 data. Bitcoin is L0.
I have hopefully cooked up an answer to both the physics of 1MB and “spam” in *theory*. Now to find the time to deploy on my home node 😵‍💫
#nevent1q…03tu

2026-08-26 00:14:41 CEST

- reply

Agreed, and I’d add to say 10 minute difficulty target, sha-256 and 1MB blocks are Bitcoin invariants/constants that are equally as vital as 21M.
You literally aren’t measuring the same conserved substrate if any change. Changing any and using the utxo set is “anchored to Genesis in bits only”.
Just my 2 sats 🤷‍♂️

2026-08-25 21:23:22 CEST

- reply

Yes, but a lot of entitlements to conserved work in the form of finite satoshis are backed by debt (no work).
Things get weird when claims upon conserved work can be made by doing no work.

2026-08-25 18:23:05 CEST

L0 - Bitcoin
L1 - SegWit
L2 - Lightning, Ark, etc.
I believe all of the answers to our problems lie here in logic and thought.

2026-08-25 18:18:37 CEST

- reply

My logic as to why you shouldnt change POW algo. Measurement invariance.
#nevent1q…h8wv

2026-08-25 18:15:56 CEST

- reply

😉

2026-08-25 16:58:21 CEST

- reply

I both agree and disagree.
I wholeheartedly agree that memory is resurrection. Anyone at any time can build upon any prior block of work because the UTXO set, the chain history, and the difficulty record are preserved. Bitcoin is eternal memory and permanence is precisely what makes resurrection possible.
Where I disagree is changing proof of work itself. Part of Bitcoin’s immaculate inception was Satoshi defining the invariants, and SHA-256 is one of those core references. Bitcoin preserves a conserved history of work against a fixed standard of measurement. If you change the measure of work after Genesis, you have changed the ruler halfway through constructing the building. You still inherit the historical UTXO set, but you can no longer compare the work on both sides of that boundary through one invariant physical reference. The change is introduced by fiat in the literal sense of the word: by decree. Genesis is the only logical place for fiat.
Thermodynamically the problem becomes even clearer. A proof-of-work change alters the search function and its associated difficulty relationship, and potentially other bounds of the search domain depending on implementation. Changing the Boltzmann entropy of the proof-of-work process (thermologics - 32-bit difficulty gate) by decree midway through the chain severs the future from reference. The historical energy curve no longer follows one invariant measurement system from Genesis forward. You have inserted a discontinuity into the very quantity of money (work/energy) you are attempting to conserve.
Yes, Bitcoin’s protocol can be modified so that a new hash function accepts the existing UTXO set and continues producing blocks. But protocol permission is not the same thing as logical invariance. If the unit by which work is measured changes, what exactly anchors the new work to Satoshi’s Genesis? What exactly is a Satoshi conserving?
Memory permits resurrection. Invariance preserves identity.
You do not have to trust me. Preserve the chain, change the proof-of-work function, and observe the energy curve. If the ruler changes at the fork, the measurement tells you exactly what happened.
“Eldest, that's what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless – before the Dark Lord came from Outside.” - Tom Bombadil

2026-08-22 13:14:50 CEST

- reply

😂 we gotta keep banging the drum on entropy and BitcoinZ
this paper is a real development in physics that reinforces Bitcoin as the system to verify the claim using real measurement.
What’s entropy? Bitcoin has the answer both from the lens of joules and the lens of bits as a quantized state change.

2026-08-22 05:06:49 CEST

- reply

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

2026-08-22 05:00:17 CEST

https://youtu.be/IxmTqIkToTg?
Bitcoin measures the state transition of Boltzmann entropy to Shannon entropy by creating a thermological gate for a chronological state.
Bitcoin is measuring the relationship of joules, sats and bits. The relationship of entropy through the conservation of energy and thermodynamics of 2nd law. Of course entropy and gravity are related. This paper is the mirror of Architecture of Time.
They need Bitcoin to understand entropy. Boltzmann to Shannon. A measured block of time. They are missing the relationship of area/distance to memory (bits).
How do we get these people to look at Bitcoin?

2026-08-22 02:58:57 CEST

- reply

Or maybe there is some missing context?

2026-08-22 00:43:27 CEST

Every bit on the chain is either a debt based bit or a work based bit, both stored as real and distributed physical bits in identical configuration across X based nodes in consensus. Just an objective observation of the physics.
We have a positive energy associated (+) with the work based bits and a negative energy associated (-) with the debt based bits.
How are they balanced?

2026-08-20 22:56:49 CEST

- reply

This conversation will happen when the time is right. Too soon.
Sitting on both fiat debt and a bitcoin balance is a logical double spend.

2026-08-20 17:48:23 CEST

What percent of UTXOs are backed by fiat debt (nothing)?
How many coins are “owned” only because of debt and the rejection that the work should be done first?
Are the excess bits created by inflating blocksize and adding arbitrary Segwit discounting an eternal debt on the network? What about using debt to acquire UTXOs to write bits on nodes?
Anyone?
Can anyone logically explain proof of work using debt and fiat as the measuring stick?

2026-08-20 17:40:28 CEST

Reality is the example as to why tail emissions, or demurrage is bad. Reality is defined by finite and bounded mathematical substrate.
One must explain Planck Energy and Planck Temperature, Planck Time and Planck Length without reasoning from a finite boundary. Explain constants vs a varying denominator. Explain the conservation of energy without a constant measure. Explain the absolute behavior of temperature and its relationship to entropy, energy (joules), information and time. An absolute measure of temperature cannot be rationalized without an invariant denominator.
One cannot even assert they are operating from pure principled reason without grounding Bitcoin’s protocol theory in objective physics and conservation law. This isn’t a matter of my opinion. What conservation logically requires trumps any of my opinions.
https://youtu.be/OmAAeEm1nIE?

2026-08-18 17:38:52 CEST

- reply

I am doing things.
#nevent1q…35d5

2026-08-15 13:03:09 CEST

- reply

🙏

2026-08-14 14:38:47 CEST

Bitcoin or BIPcoin?

2026-08-14 12:50:14 CEST

- reply

If I have held my logic and integrity in true faithfulness to what Bitcoin demonstrates, I am not asking you to prove me wrong. I am an imperfect person.
I am telling you that you’d have to prove Bitcoin wrong. This isn’t about me. It’s about the proof of Bitcoin.
The conservation of energy must be answered for. The measurement boundary must be answered for. If you are going to talk about a physical system using joules/bits via electron state to break encryption/logic it must be performed without double spend.
Please solve the double spend problem without a quantized block of time in Bitcoin. Please tell me how energy can be conserved without a quantum of time at the Planck scale. If time is quantized and discrete via halts then superposition (computation) must too be discrete between the fundamental boundary ticks. This is the logic of conservation applied to the economics of energy and information.
This is what Bitcoin is pointing to. My theory ≠ Bitcoin’s proof

2026-08-14 12:32:04 CEST

- reply

You forgot to mention the chronology. 😉
Time, energy/entropy, memory.
Nobody can answer for bits of entropy and joules of entropy without Bitcoin because they don’t have a verifiable thermological system that produces a chronological state. You can’t unify Boltzmann and Shannon without Bitcoin.
When you map the logics of a block of time as you understand it in Bitcoin to the Planck unit of time, the fiat in modern physics reveals itself. Energy/bits cannot be double spent in a world of conservation. Resolution to the double spend is mandatory in any “theory” of physics.
Bitcoin is not a theory of time, a theory of energy/entropy or a theory of memory, it’s proof in a logical architecture.
The economics of energy is bounded by the logic of conservation and the rule of God. You must be able to describe all of the mechanics.
What are we to Bitcoin? What is God to us? It’s just bits of energy authored by conscious work.

2026-08-14 12:08:39 CEST

- reply

Can you tell me why these equations are wrong?
Where have I ever said that god plays dice or have taken that side of the logic?
My whole point is nobody in physics understands superposition precisely because it’s logically undefinable without a true measurement boundary and a defined quantum of time. The mechanics of Superpostion have not been empirically verified at Planck scale, because they can’t.
You must resolve the double spend problem of energy at the Planck scale which necessitates a quantized block of time if you pull conservation logic to the limit, which pushes Superpostion to a sub-Planck phenomena. You have define the measurement to define what pre-measurement is.
“deception is incoherence at insufficient resolution appearing to be coherent
chaos is coherence at insufficient resolution appearing to be incoherent.”
- you are basically describing the I Ching and bit flips.
https://blossom.primal.net/46e17121d16662e9d5b3e317406ce85d371855eee589d107065eb496017b66d7.jpg

2026-08-14 12:00:52 CEST

- reply

How does one explain the economics of energy?
Bitcoin isn’t a model, it’s literally proof.

2026-08-13 20:57:57 CEST

- reply

For those who don’t quite understand the physics of a Bitcoin fork.
A centralized chain with 1 node has x bits (total chain memory); and y mass (sum up joules per bit and convert via E=mc^2).
A decentralized chain with 10,000 nodes has the same x bits (total) chain memory on each node; but it has 10,000*y mass. The chain has 10,000 times the mass of a centralized chain since each node is running an identical copy of the bits which are all physical bits. ALL BITS ARE PHYSICAL. All bits are synchronous.
sýn (“together, with”) + khrónos (“time”).
synchronous = “together in time”
So, a forked chain that has ~20% of the nodes diverging in history has lost 20% of the mass, thus 20% of the energy in what is physically being preserved. A physical divergence in energy.
2 competing chains that are fractional masses of what once was one cohesive chain.
Bearish until full unity (unlikely). Down we go. Fiat has no logic here. A chain with fiat backed coins via debt will eventually respond to a falling fiat price.
Nodes are physical matter; and they do matter. You should listen to their concerns, especially when they are offering you socialized block space by transferring fees from sats to bits via inflating blockspace and arbitrary discounting of identical physical bits from protocol fiat.
Are we going to look at the physics or not?
My two sats; too bad they are worth-less.
#nevent1q…mxh4

2026-08-13 18:24:37 CEST

What is Nakamoto Consensus?

2026-08-13 17:06:17 CEST

- reply

More, or all?
How can you have a satoshi backed by proof of work (joules) and the claim of ownership backed by debt (no work/joules).
In a world where energy is conserved…the math ain’t mathing.
If they all blow up, we are globally in for it

2026-08-13 16:04:05 CEST

- reply

Seedsigner seems decent.
A verified AGC with keys to sign also seems good too.
The question is how much work are you willing to put in to create the entropy and the memory gap?
Rolling dice (even/odd) or coins for 256 bits, hashing your own checksum, verifying the xpub/zpub and entropy takes 1.5-2 hours of work for a single key. Could be faster if you can optimize the calcs of words and input of your 256 bits, etc.

2026-08-13 11:59:34 CEST

- reply

The nodes are the mass of the system. The bits have joules, thus mass; literally. A large fork of nodes is a large fork of the chains mass, 2 histories of physical bits.
The term economic nodes is loaded. For example an exchange is considered an economic node due to the amount of coins and velocity of coins moving, but this is a fiat economic node….exchanges don’t exist in a hyperbitcoinized world. They are ephemeral “economic” (fiat) nodes.

2026-08-13 00:41:48 CEST

- reply

Create an op_return that BIP110 nodes ignore. This will ensure your tx is only on the core chain.

2026-08-12 19:53:09 CEST

- reply

You are very focused on conserving the “coin” aspect of the system. What about conserving the “bit” aspect? It is called Bitcoin after all. Should we not focus on both? Why one over the other? How are you accounting for the conservation of the bits and the invariance of measurement? Sats only have value with respect to the bits and vice versa.
What happens when the bits fracture into 2 chains of chronology? How does our time and energy split between the two chains? Energy is conserved; a fork bound to conservation with state that the energy is physically forked.
What about the minds behind the nodes? What happens when they fork? What happens to the energy?

2026-08-12 18:46:00 CEST

If bits have energy as shown, they have a mass equivalence too.
A chain split of call it ~20% of the nodes, or 20% of the bits diverge, we will see 20% of the mass of bitcoin diverge.
This means that there are two representations of time/gravity competing for truth. Low temperature (fee) blocks do not add as much work as high fee blocks. Nobody knows the future, but I see almost nobody is thinking this way.
Guys there’s a lot of risk here if we misunderstand the physics. I may be completely wrong, but just my perspective. Can anyone else verify?
https://blossom.primal.net/46e17121d16662e9d5b3e317406ce85d371855eee589d107065eb496017b66d7.jpg

2026-08-12 18:31:16 CEST

- reply

Maybe, hard to say. Seems quite possible to me. I personally am choosing to have less Bitcoin and less debt to free my time for my family. Everyone values their time differently.

2026-08-12 18:23:30 CEST

- reply

Mempool.guide

2026-08-12 18:14:46 CEST

- reply

Hmm? Can you expand a bit?

2026-08-12 18:06:29 CEST

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

2026-08-12 17:48:58 CEST

- reply

🧗

2026-08-12 17:47:35 CEST

- reply

Amen! 🧡🤝 See you soon! 😎

2026-08-12 17:14:55 CEST

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

2026-08-12 15:30:10 CEST

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

2026-08-12 12:19:31 CEST

- reply

12 v 24 words. They also have a smaller compressed version I believe

2026-08-11 20:48:41 CEST

Agreement ≠ Consensus

2026-08-11 18:08:42 CEST

- reply

The conscious energy (plebs minds/work) of bitcoin has fractured into atleast 2 chains (if not more). Memory inflated.
If energy is conserved; expect the $65k per coin price to distribute where each user assigns value. It can’t be double spent if energy is conserved; just mispriced in fiat terms.
Nodes leaving the network also means fiat vas left the network despite no change to each ledger. Debt backed coins are the unpriced risk currently.
#nevent1q…7n8z

2026-08-11 15:46:28 CEST

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

2026-08-10 17:50:50 CEST

Superposed entropy must be understood 👀

2026-08-10 15:42:57 CEST

- reply

Price is in superposition of having absolute pure signal and absolute no signal. 0, 1.

2026-08-09 22:00:03 CEST

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

2026-08-09 20:30:15 CEST

https://youtu.be/gp5JCrSXkJY?

2026-08-09 19:42:28 CEST

https://youtu.be/V3kZwsysuqQ?

2026-08-09 18:32:51 CEST

- reply

Not all memory states (blocks) in the chain are captured/corrupted.

2026-08-09 17:07:28 CEST

- reply

There is a single chain of truth. There can be multiple chains of superposed work that must eventually collapse into a single chain of binary when the proper measurement is performed. Nobody knows when, it is emergent and irreducible.

2026-08-09 16:52:41 CEST

- reply

The chain is in tranquility.

2026-08-09 16:26:33 CEST

- reply

I think this conversation is best done p2p for now. We have to remember how early we are and how high time preferenced everything is currently.
The next block still does not have structure. I don’t want people to believe that we are speaking in absolutes until more consensus is formed. My opinions and deducible logic of the physics have not been thoroughly verified by others.
I shouldn’t be trusted.
Reach out to us to continue the convo! 😉

2026-08-09 14:49:36 CEST

- reply

I don’t have an answer because I don’t know. I only offer a question:
Is SegWit discounting a violation of Nakamoto Consensus?

2026-08-09 14:20:33 CEST

- reply

I just mean that it’s not up to me to tell you when, it’s up to you to decide for yourself without my influence.
We still have our coins on the fiatchain, but my mind and my work will be elsewhere. I’ll report back when I have something for others to execute on.
For now, I must learn the architecture of Bitcoin core’s code.

2026-08-09 14:10:01 CEST

- reply

It’s up to you to decide when Nakamoto consensus broke for yourself.
I have my opinions.

2026-08-09 13:14:43 CEST

In true Nakamoto Consensus, there is only one valid block of time to build on top of.