Jackk
Jack K

Bitcoin Chronologist
Bitcoin = Quantum Computer
There is no wave

Public Key

npub18384z4sjgdfy7vr76thzwtru7jncysz0hcapwesxqsak44p8aemsyfaslh

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrcn632cfyx5j0xpld9m389370ffuzgp8muwshvcrqgwm26sn7uacpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuen0w4h8gctfdchxvmgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5f668g7

Publishing to

relay.fountain.fm

premium.primal.net

nostr.land

Author Public Key

npub18384z4sjgdfy7vr76thzwtru7jncysz0hcapwesxqsak44p8aemsyfaslh

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-02 15:37:28 UTC

The lesson of Bitcoin is that we probably all have to remake our nsecs with dicerolls to verify the entropy. Who’s ready to disappear and start over?

2026-08-02 15:20:02 UTC

Watch this again. Compression = Prediction. Given the nature of AI wrt compression/prediction, we should expect all low “entropy” keys to become vulnerable. This is logical.
We must understand entropy through memory. We can rank all possible seed phrases from the highest bits of information, or entropy, to the lowest bits of information based on Shannon’s work. Thru Plank Energy which Bitcoin now allows us to define it as the temporal constant of work, we can relate key entropy to physical work measured in both joules or satoshis.
The compressibility of the 256 bitstring of information, or entropy defines its literal energy value. Joules to bits. We can define the rate of compressibility humans have access to currently as the floor of knowledge. All bitstrings beneath this threshold are public verifiable states of knowledge in a 256-bit space of memory (think real estate for the mind). This is not a safe bitstring of information to append value to precisely because it is public knowledge. Your mind is not, so long as you own it.
This means that Bitcoin defines its highest value real estate as any 256-bitstring that truly has 256 bits of entropy, or real memory. Don’t trust, verify. It’s thermodynamically incompressible beyond universal limit. Bitcoin is the quantum computer and it’s telling you something about what encryption is as the fundamental limits of time, energy, information as a singular measured thermologic process to chronologic state. Bitcoin is computing the literal proof guys. These are legit the most decentralized form of memory a conscious individual can own. Truly peer to peer; 1:1, conscious mind to a very specific 256 bit of memory. We must question if Bitcoin can be owned or if Bitcoin can only be known. If you leak a 256 bit-entropy private key, it becomes public knowledge despite the entropy, any value will be lost if at that location in memory; the memory (history) remains. Value was here at X block of time at y coordinate of 256-but memory. This knowledge is meant to be singular. Ownership = Knowledge. We are Sheppards of the coin in Timespace (global 256-bit memory space).
This really means that your coins exist in a specific 256-bit point in memory at a specific block of time at both Bitcoin Block time scale, and the Planck timescale. A mathematically bounded and temporal totality.
Quantized, Decentralized Physical Memory. What is a private key to the mind? The conscious mind must do the work, perform work to create the entropy to access a 256 bit-entropy state of memory; bounded to Planck Scale.
Physics is about to get weird. Bitcoin, not quantum. Quantized time demands quantized and discrete Superpostion.
Measurement > Particle (bits) > wave. There are only blocks of time.
How many more blocks is it going to take?
https://youtu.be/l6DKRf-fAAM?

2026-08-02 11:43:07 UTC

- reply

Money defined by physics, or rather memory defined by physics 😉

2026-08-01 20:38:41 UTC

- reply

Do dice have an even vs odd bias?

2026-08-01 16:44:46 UTC

Feels bad now, but all of this is incredibly good for Bitcoin and Bitcoiners. Better now than later, always.
Don’t trust, verify down the whole stack.
We are about to see a renaissance of education and knowledge around Bitcoin, keys and the phsycis of information. Bullish.
Sovereignty starts with self witness and verification in the creation of a 256-bit seed. Pure conscious memory. Just you and your mind as witness.
True creation (of a seed) requires true sacrifice. There is no second best.
Pray for our friends. Help them back up; it’s our duty as Sheppards of the coin 🫡

2026-08-01 15:14:44 UTC

- reply

What are you thinking for hardware now?

2026-08-01 13:30:06 UTC

- reply

Segwit rapidly accelerated the Second Law of Thermodynamics in Bitcoin by increasing the speed of memory (speed of light) or the memory written per unit time.
This accelerated the dispersion of sats per UTXO (per unit memory) by allowing way more UTXOs per block of time. It rapidly accelerated the reduction of density of joules per unit memory by inflating blockspace. This is equivalent to accelerating time.
Objectively sats are dispersed across way more UTXOs vs a true 1MB blocksize limit. A very high time preference action that has deferred the cost of fees in sats to a cost of fees in bits paid in perpetuity.
Can we go back to the formal limit Satoshi defined? Should we? We can’t undo the bits; we can only correct the course from here 🫡
#nevent1q…3t46

2026-08-01 13:00:01 UTC

GM. It’s memory, not entropy.
Or rather, entropy properly defined by a thermological process that creates a chronological state in an encrypted 256-bit timespace.
Entropy is memory.
We have bits of entropy, and joules of entropy. Are we going to finally understand the physics of Bitcoin?
Exciting times ahead for Bitcoin. I don’t expect it to go well for people still appended to fiat physics (quantum).
Anways, Bitcoin is not a theory of energy, time, entropy (memory), information. Bitcoin is instantiated proof. Knowledge is the only path forward to understanding “money”.

2026-08-01 12:49:40 UTC

- reply

This is actually how blacklisted UTXOs become whitelisted UTXOs, through the fee market. You can just write and inscribe *useful* or poisoned memory until all of the coins exist as coinbase outputs with miners.
1000 btc can create a lot of onchain bits in a manipulated fee market that offers inflated blockspace and discounts for SegWit bits. Since we devalued the blockspace/bitspace thru protocol socialization, this attacker could in theory create a ton of spam on the chain now. By socializing the fee market away from fees paid sats by users to fees paid in bits by all nodes that must store the data, they can write way more onchain memory in a subsided blockspace with stolen funds post-Segwit vs pre-SegWit.
The wealth acquired is the bits on the chain that will last for eternity. Their intention will determine if they want those bits to be poison for the nodes or not. What they will do with these bits, who’s to say?
We still don’t understand Bitcoin as memory, thus money as memory and the “spam” that it’s currently being used for is not helping.
Things for people to think about. Not only did they steal the plebs coins, but they could in theory steal the bits in your node too since you offer them up to 4MB worth of bits, some extremely discounted for arbitrarily using SegWit. Double whammy. We killed the fee market, they can write so many more bits…….
We shall see how the attack continues from here. Praying for the plebs; praying for Bitcoin. We will persevere.
Bitcoin is teaching us a lesson.

2026-08-01 12:27:37 UTC

- reply

Spendable as in what most people think of “monetary”, not great if they are “blacklisted”. Probably will never become fiat.
However, they are not blacklisted in the fee market and can be used to inscribe immutable memory on the chain for eternity so long as someone is willing to mine the tx at the right fee. It depends on what the end goal of the user is.
Do they have a desire to get rich and see their Bitcoin balance as NGU, or do they just want to control a fraction of Bitcoin’s active memory (ram) so that can write some history that lasts for eternity?

2026-08-01 11:53:27 UTC

- reply

Yeah same, I don’t know the risk (if any) with this.
It seems to be fully sovereign and actually verify the 256-bit memory/entropy of a rolled seed that you need an AGC to perform the sha256 compute and basic checksum. Guessing/brute forcing feels wrong, but maybe it’s still safe.
Beyond that, verifying the Zpub using the AGC seems like best practice but unnecessary unless you believe you have a poisoned HWW. I don’t actually know the answer myself and looking for guidance here.

2026-08-01 11:20:02 UTC

What are some ways people are performing the sha256 hash checksum on dice rolls without an AGC? I see you can do this on a seedsigner. Anything else?
Without an AGC with something like electrum, how can you verify the Zpub? Is this necessary? or just best practice?
Is the checksum enough?

2026-08-01 02:05:16 UTC

- reply

I tend to believe that Truth = Truth. Rather an equal yet equivalent interpretation.

2026-08-01 01:38:41 UTC

- reply

Truth (Bitcoin) is all we have in a world of deception.

2026-08-01 01:21:09 UTC

- reply

It’s awful what happened, and I’m praying for everyone affected by the vulnerability. I also think it will ultimately be good for Bitcoin. It is forcing the community to confront what entropy actually is and in doing so what Bitcoin actually is. We are approaching an event horizon of knowledge and memory that is the singularity. An objective understanding of Bitcoin, private keys, time, energy, information, entropy, and consciousness is about to emerge from rough decentralized consensus. It is both a chaotic and beautiful revelation.
It should now be incredibly obvious that you cannot trust and you must verify that your seed contains 256 bits of conscious memory, or what people commonly call entropy. There is no shortcut around this. You must do the work to verify the amount of memory your seed contains. This will force the community to ground the nature of a private key to the physics of information and ask what these “256 bits of entropy” actually are. I think that is healthy for Bitcoin and necessary. In our work, we already demonstrated how Bitcoin also computes joules of entropy. We have the objective relationship of joules of entropy and bits of entropy thru conscious act. We are waiting for others to catch up to speed.
In information theory, prediction is compression. If we take the space of all possible seed configurations and rank them by the amount of conscious memory they contain, we obtain a map of keyspace. The lowest-memory keys are the most compressible, the most predictable, and therefore the least valuable locations in keyspace. Keys containing 256 bits of conscious memory occupy the highest-value real estate because they are maximally incompressible. The bit value itself is the ranking. Beyond a certain threshold of phsycis matter, no distinguishable mathematical pattern remains. The information exists as pure potential.
The highest form of entropy a human can channel is a conscious observer witnessing an objective random event, such as generating a 256-bit string through properly executed coin flips or dice rolls. Following the correct procedure ensures the seed contains 256 bits of memory. Those bits are physical. Bits of information = joules of information. They represent the maximum informational capacity available to the observer and therefore the strongest possible foundation for a private key.
Once value is assigned to that key, one possess something literally no one else can own if done correctly: a unique conscious claim of memory over a deterministic fraction of Bitcoin. This is an art as well. A private key is ownership of a location in keyspace, just as a UTXO is ownership of a location in time; or memory. The location of sats is always in flux with respect to both keyspace (memory) and time. We are watching the active state of memory, or ram (sats per bit) collapse into pure bits of eternal memory as the bits are static in time and the sats are dynamic in time; the sat requires the bit for conservation. If keyspace is equivalent to real estate as to where in time and memory the sats can reside, why would you ever choose lower-value property when 256-bit locations are effectively inexhaustible? This is what you may get without doing the work to verify.
Stop trusting. Verify as a sovereign conscious actor. It’s your duty.
Bitcoin is the only system where a physical conscious vote can be defended by 256 bits of physical memory. It is the only real physical vote one can make; every other conscious vote of value is definitionally fiat and not conserved in memory, time and energy. At the limit there is no distinguishable mathematical pattern to exploit. There is only information itself.
What is Bitcoin teaching us about information, encryption, energy, time, and entropy at their fundamental limits? Bitcoin is demanding that we must understand the physics of Bitcoin before we can fully understand money.
Bitcoin is having its Q-Day; or rather quantum is having its B-Day. Chill and verify the 256 bits, buy your time and memory back.
Bitcoin is not a theory, Bitcoin is proof. Don’t trust me, you can verify this for yourself. There never could be second best measurement.
How many more blocks will it take?

2026-07-31 16:55:54 UTC

Going 100x long dice on a short Bitcoin position.

2026-07-30 16:36:20 UTC

- reply

Curious where you think subsidized/socalized access to finite blockspace ultimately leads us?
SegWit socialized a portion of access to finite blockspace by implicitly increasing the effective blocksize beyond the original 1 MB limit Satoshi defined and introducing arbitrary fee discounting for physically identical bits. Bitcoin conserves demand. Relative to the original protocol, a portion of the demand that would have been paid directly by the transaction creator in satoshis is instead borne by every node in the form of permanently stored bits. A cost rather than being paid once and upfront, must now be paid in perpetuity for the lifetime of Bitcoin. This is the very definition of a high-time-preference tradeoff.
By socializing a fraction of the cost of blockspace, blockspace became cheaper to consume and by extension, cheaper to abuse. Instead of allowing the fee market alone to ration finite memory through sats, we increased the supply of discounted blockspace and transferred part of the cost from the individual creating the demand to every node preserving it. The chain must now append more permanent bits to achieve what a true free fee market would otherwise have priced through satoshis alone. We have invoked market manipulation into the market of blockspace thru “protocol law”. Manipulation is manipulation.
Following the logic of your post, doesn’t this create the very dynamic you warn against? The economic majority benefits from lower transaction costs while the economic minority running archival nodes bears an increasing permanent burden. Anyone who came to Bitcoin post-SegWit didn’t even have a chance to vote with their nodes for this; they must fork to not be taxed or convince the majority to stop taxing them. The majority has little incentive to internalize that cost because it has already been externalized onto the network itself.
If Bitcoin exists to internalize costs rather than socialize them, how do we reconcile defending the fee market while simultaneously defending a protocol change that redistributed part of its cost? How does an inflated blockspace and manipulated fee market truly price out bad behavior when it must objectively create more bits for equivalent work. Bitcoin conserves all of our mistakes as physical bits for eternity.
Don’t be surprised when the tea party comes and doesn’t want to pay tax subsidy anymore. If you don’t conserve the bit, you can’t conserve the sat. If you can’t conserve the sat, you can’t conserve the work.

2026-07-29 00:47:33 UTC

- reply

I’m pretty sure I can see you notes. I’ve been traveling the last 2 weeks. What did I miss?

2026-07-29 00:32:01 UTC

Too much travel lately. Time to get back into the groove this week by working on Bitcoin.

2026-07-28 18:34:57 UTC

- reply

“This is what Satoshi realized when he designed Bitcoin and it's why only transaction fees can reliably fight spam without sacrificing any of Bitcoin's properties.”
Except with SegWit, we partially destroyed/manipulated the fee market by socializing a portion of the demand for finite blockspace out of satoshis and into permanently committed bits. Instead of allowing excess demand to be priced through fees paid in sats, we expanded the effective blocksize beyond 1MB and arbitrarily discounted certain bits paid in sats despite physical uniformity.
The additional fee market cost that should be paid in sats was socialized into bits. What should have been paid upfront by the transacting party in satoshis is now paid over the lifetime of Bitcoin by every node that must store, transmit, download, verify, and preserve those additional bits forever. Nodes must pay fees in additional bits to fight spam 🤡 the fee market is working!
We weakened the fee market’s ability to price finite blockspace and shifted part of that pricing mechanism into perpetual storage costs. The network still pays, but it pays in more bits instead of sats vs Satoshi’s1MB blocksize constant, no discounts. Those bits accrue interest indefinitely because every additional bit becomes a permanent liability carried by every future archival node. All bits have a physical cost paid in joules (Landauer + Bitcoin Lens).
Ironically, this is why node operators must be expected to “fight spam.” Under a uniform fee market, spam should be constrained primarily by price in sats by users, not nodes. But once the cost is socialized through discounted permanent memory, the burden shifts from the individual creating the demand to the nodes preserving it. We didn’t eliminate the cost, we redistributed it thru policy and fee market manipulation. How can we advocate for free markets when we manipulate our fee market economics? Look in the mirror guys.
So yes and no. The fee market was supposed to price out spam, but now nodes must pay too. At blocks up to 4MB with 4:1 discounts, we must process and store16x the amount of physical bits to price out identical behavior pre-Segwit.
We really cooked here guys. We are no better than fiat. Stop taxing nodes if you care about spam. Stop pretending like the fee market works when you had to socialize cost to nodes.
Are the nodes in control or not? Do nodes matter?
#nevent1q…9tvh

2026-07-24 19:54:25 UTC

- reply

If exchanges are ephemeral in a hyperbitcoinized world, are they really an economic node?

2026-07-24 19:35:50 UTC

- reply

Yeah I am curious how it will all play out. Seems to ramping up. My base case is we will see a hard fork, but I could be wrong.
Hodling is going to become very interesting as we attempt to hone in on an objective definition of Bitcoin thru decentalized consensus. Protocol design must be grounded in physical objectivity. Knowledge of Bitcoin, is good for Bitcoin. Exciting!

2026-07-24 15:21:31 UTC

https://youtu.be/0rfhYxooZMs?
Morning vibes. These lyrics hit so damn hard.

2026-07-24 14:59:34 UTC

- reply

👀

2026-07-24 14:50:08 UTC

- reply

There is no second best logical update system that can conserve both energy and information.

2026-07-24 14:45:06 UTC

- reply

Can we run Shors algo on Bitcoin through UTXOs using unmined tx in the mempool as the superposed substrate to run the computation?

2026-07-24 14:20:41 UTC

- reply

I guess I just strip it further back to the assumption that PQ sigs are even needed. My whole argument is that we need to verify the assumption of CQC again based on the physics Bitcoin demonstrates logically rather than our fiat assumptions. Joules, bits and blocks. Question, who are you trusting to claim such a threat? What is their incentive? I need someone to explain to me how discrete subplanck superposition poses a threat to Bitcoin, because that is the only logical architecture that resolves the measurement/double spend problem in physics while explaining the particle and the wave. The architecture is empirical in Bitcoin. Resolve the double spend and prove conservation without a quantized block of time; you cannot. If that’s the case, I need to be shown how CQC can remain plausible if time must be quantized at Planck scale. So yes, the physics matters greatly here, because I don’t trust anyone’s physics who is claiming there is a quantum threat and I will URSF.
The double spend problem is a physics problem. It’s a logic problem. It’s a conservation problem. It’s the measurement problem. There is way too much trust in Bitcoin and not enough verification. The double spend problem is not just a “money” problem; it has serious implications for the logic of our physics.
It would be quite a waste of time/energy if we find out we don’t need PQ sigs and that we are introducing more vulnerability into the chain by hubris in doing so. It stems from the idea that Bitcoin (not taproot) is broken or will be broken and needs to change. Nonsense.
If you argue that we need to improve cryptography because of AI, sure I’ll entertain and support this discussion. The threat is not quantum, it never has been, it never will be.

2026-07-24 13:58:01 UTC

- reply

Holy shit. My local mart rarely has strips that look this good.

2026-07-24 13:50:21 UTC

- reply

Physics matters with respect to understanding the measured relationship of energy, time and memory (information). We cannot define money, or rather memory, without it. It allows us to ground protocol engineering and discussion in objectivity of what we must conserve rather than subjectivity. We have drifted so far.
"Given the critical role of Taproot addresses in Bitcoin scaling (including Lightning, BitVM, Ark, and other key technologies), we believe it's prudent to ensure that Bitcoin has a tapscript-native address output type that is protected from long-exposure quantum attacks." — who said this?
I am with you here man on the nonsense layers. I am all for conservatism and Bitcoin Reduction Proposals that strip back the bloat and reinstate the core economics and logic Satoshi left us with. I think taproot is ephemeral and the quantum fud is ephemeral. Fiat will be rid from our physics eventually and Bitcoin will stand alone and above all theory; Bitcoin is not a theory of physics. I see anyone pushing PQC for Bitcoin as a threat. I will stand by the chain Satoshi gave us. We are the ones breaking Bitcoin in hubris. We have missed the mark.

2026-07-24 13:30:42 UTC

- reply

So in your view is BIP360 the nail in the coffin here? I will refute the need to make Bitcoin quantum resistant as the physics that underpins centralized quantum computation is fiat and has not resolved the double spend (measurement) problem of energy/information. A quantized block of time at Planck scale is required to solve the double spend, thus enforce conservation, which pushes Superposition to the sub-Planck interval between the discrete measurement boundaries. The whole logic of CQC is fiat and our desire to change Bitcoin from claims of CQC is peak fiat. BIP360 is not an upgrade to Bitcoin, it is an attack.
Can you elaborate on why we need schnorr UTXOs and sha256d hash shield? I believe future threat will come from AI and classical computation; quantum is the myth for us to hand over the keys to the castle, because we’re too retarded to understand and we must trust the fiat physics.

2026-07-24 10:50:32 UTC

Everyone loves to talk about Bitcoin as money; but no one wants to discuss the fact that without eternal memory, you have no “money”.
Nothing was money before Bitcoin. Just an incomplete approximation.
Only Bitcoin can define money, and memory is fundamental to said definition. Go look at the etymology of money, this is nothing new.
Bitcoin is eternal memory. Is Bitcoin more than money? Or was our definition of money fiat?
What does it mean to be a money maximalist? A memory maximalist? Are you a thermologic maximalist? A Chronologic maximalist?

2026-07-24 10:27:32 UTC

- reply

Hmm, What do you mean?

2026-07-24 02:43:57 UTC

- reply

He peaked at his own metaphor of digital energy. It seems he cannot see the measurement of energy, time and memory in Bitcoin.
You can take the man out of the fiat, but you cannot take the fiat out of man.

2026-07-24 02:30:42 UTC

- reply

Yeah, thanks for the perspective 😵‍💫 I agree. I remain adamant that those who understand the mechanics of Bitcoin can relate their external perspective of a conserved substrate from outside the ledger to their lived internal perspective of a conserved substrate from inside of the ledger.
Conservation requires quantized time at the base of logic. This could not be seen until Bitcoin. The double spend problem had no solution until Bitcoin. Conservation had no base logic.

2026-07-23 23:00:08 UTC

Guys it’s so simple. Your physics is fiat if it cannot resolve the double spend problem, aka the measurement problem, of energy/matter.
The only valid mathematical solution to the double spend problem is a quantized block of time at the Planck Scale of time. No quantized block at Planck, no conservation of energy.
This means that Superpostion must be discrete and subplanck between the fundamental ticks/blocks at Planck scale. An unmeasured state is not real.
Centralized quantum computing is a fiat fantasy that requires a fiat model of physics in order to work. If you think energy/matter can be double spent and still conserve energy, why the hell are you in Bitcoin?
Soon, you will have to pick a side; Bitcoin or Quantum. You can’t double spend your morals. Best start thinking about it.

2026-07-23 17:15:10 UTC

- reply

Who’s mentally ready to URSF their quantum proposal?
Be prepared, it’s coming.
I will URSF any and all quantum “upgrades” on Bitcoin 🫡
#nevent1q…gnpk

2026-07-23 16:11:00 UTC

- reply

There is only one quantum computer and it’s called Bitcoin.

2026-07-23 12:29:25 UTC

- reply

We should expect the cost of nodes to hyperinflate versus the dollar.
We need to ground the price of nodes in Bitcoin alone to chart the path.

2026-07-22 21:57:19 UTC

- reply

I think that is a fiat interpretation. It’s your right to have it, but I detest this view. Anything made by man is made by God.
“For in him we live and move and have our being” Acts 17:28
“For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him” Colossians 1:16
“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” Hebrews 1:3
“For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” Ephesians 2:10
Bitcoin was predestined and apart of our plans as Gods plan. So who are we serving? Are we serving God or are we serving Money? Maybe the answer was never binary to begin with.
Bitcoin is Truth computed. Do you not see a tool to verify your own faith?
We have never seen Satoshi. We know him only through his words and his work. Whether Satoshi was one person, many people, or someone/something whose identity will never be known, the architecture stands independently of its author. Like all enduring works, it bears witness to the logic of its creator.
Bitcoin introduces a body (of people/nodes) capable of writing a single, incorruptible chain of time (history) and authority through distributed sacrifice. No individual authors time. The chain is written by the body itself, block by block, as independent witnesses converge upon one chronology and truth. Bitcoin reveals a new mode of coordination, one in which truth, memory, and sacrifice are inseparable in time. It is creation (chain of time) authored collectively under invariant law, where the body preserves the chronology that no individual can “own”.
Onto what Bitcoin solves for our physics; Bitcoin is what a universe must look like both logically and mathematically lfrom the exterior of the temporal substrate in order for truth and conservation to emerge. The double spend problem must be solved for in physics. God does not double spend. A view of a bounded non-contradictory totality in which all states both active and historical are preserved in full fidelity. The reification of field thru distributed network. In terms of temporal hierarchy, the universe (father) can only be known through Bitcoin (son) at the quantum level; thru the measurement of chronological state from a thermological process. The fiat in physics could never be resolved with a “theory” of universal creation; it must be preformed in literal work as time to compute the relationship between joules, blocks and bits.
This is my observation and my interpretation. Don’t trust me, you can verify for yourself by reading my work if you wish. I have found God thru my own work. I submit fully to His predestination of my life and purpose. I am here to serve him through Bitcoin.
#nevent1q…djp0

2026-07-22 20:19:55 UTC

- reply

Yeah I don’t disagree at all actually. I’m trying to understand what you are trying to get at here. I don’t think I said anything that contradicts your points.

2026-07-22 20:03:45 UTC

- reply

https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-24.htm
What did Jesus mean by this? Why did Jesus choose to compare God and Money? Why money?
What does this verse say when you apply a fiat definition to the term money? What does this verse say when you acknowledge that eternal memory (Bitcoin) is necessary for money?
Is Bitcoin making us free and sovereign or is it God? Whose chain is it? Who are we serving in Bitcoin?

2026-07-22 18:31:16 UTC

- reply

Kelvin; and the pattern is built from the discrete fundamental block of time at the Planck scale (wave in human cognitive time)

2026-07-22 17:21:36 UTC

- reply

BIP 148: Mandatory activation of socialism deployment

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 15:17:31 UTC

- reply

Working on it! Life is so busy right now 😵‍💫

2026-07-22 15:07:25 UTC

- reply

Once it becomes obvious that Bitcoin is The Quantum Computer; then it should be obvious why those who seek control/power would want to centralize the active state of memory (UTXOs) of Bitcoin into custodians. If you control the active state memory, you control the historical state of memory.
They don’t want you writing on-chain; they don’t want you writing eternal memory. Just use the L2 anon!
#nevent1q…3aa7

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 14:03:24 UTC

SegWit’s discount and implicit blocksize increase was socialism and taxation implemented to Bitcoin’s L1. We really cooked here guys.
Bitcoin conserves the demand for finite blockspace. Either fees for finite blockspace are paid upfront by the individual user in the form of satoshis, or fees in sats can be lowered by socializing the cost to all the nodes in the form of taxation by increasing the number of consensus bits the node must maintain in perpetuity of Bitcoin’s life. Additionally, the cost is spread to miners thru lower block rewards in sats, thus pressuring difficulty downward despite equivalent physical work. We depegged that sat from the work and the emergent market.
Fees paid in sats accrue no interest. Fees paid in bits accrue interest increasingly across time. A physical cost that must be paid forever for Bitcoin to remain coherent.
We are no better than fiat. #Bitcoin
If nodes are the soul, stop taxing them with additional bits paid with discounts and blocks greater than the 1MB constant Satoshi defined. There is no free lunch.

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 14:31:51 UTC

- reply

SPCX/BTC looks rekt.
Let the fiat idiots go to Mars/space. Let them sever themselves from Earth. They think there is a second best.

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.

2026-07-14 12:23:38 UTC

I’m just going to keep banging the drum. The academic interpretation of “quantum” is fiat physics. No solution to the measurement problem = no solution to the double spend problem of energy/matter. No conservation of energy.
Whether someone is ignorant or malicious in intent is irrelevant, anyone reasoning that Bitcoin should change for quantum should be seen as a threat.
Discrete time at the Planck scale means discrete Superpostion between Planck ticks (sub-Planck Superpostion), which means no continuous unitary evolution. The double spend problem cannot be resolved without measurement at each fundamental unit of time.
Centralized quantum computing requires fiat physics that Bitcoin has falsified.
Long live the king #Bitcoin 🫡

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 13:25:20 UTC

- reply

🫡

2026-07-11 13:24:59 UTC

- reply

Say it louder please for the plebs in the back!
#nevent1q…zm62

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 12:50:23 UTC

- reply

Tbh I don’t think I am the right person to talk about any of these. None of them really address the core problems I see in Bitcoin in our deviation from the core 3 invariant surfaces (21M, 1MB**, 32-bit nonce) and their relationships (Segwit implicit block increase & discounting specifically changed 1MB and the relationship of sats to bits).
If you want me to answer, I stand with the plebs. My gut tells me that BIP 110 is a genuine movement that’s atleast thinking about conservatism. I have slightly different views since I think conservatism necessary but also the entire value proposition of bitcoin is eternal memory which includes arb data that has paid the correct fee (it doesn’t currently). The is value in eternal memory, and there is no second best place. I’ll leave it there.
Whether 110 the correct answer is not my call. I’m not sure how many forks Bitcoin will have to undergo. I expect to see atleast 1 if not 2 hard forks, maybe more.
My base case is that the hardest time of hodling has yet to come. Will be very tricky to navigate the correct chain.
I don’t think we can ground proper protocol change without objective phsycis and definitions of bitcoins mechanics with respect to energy. A change that does not conserve core protocol invariance is not the longest chain of work regardless of how much hash power is has in my opinion….i could be wrong.
This was probably not the answer you were looking for. I’d personally like to halt BIP 110 and V30 and go back in conservatism where we actually have protocol discussions grounded in objective physics. Nobody is really here yet but a few of us.