Jackk
Jack K

Yeah, there is no 1:1 consistent measurable relationship between sats and bits anymore as it is determined by transaction construction not just purely the fee market. The relationship is arbitrary.
Memory on chain is increasing in bits, the fee + subsidy is temperature, so a false fee severs the relationship between bits of entropy and joules of entropy. PoW -> Block of Time as memory.
The physical bit still requires joules to produce, store and maintain on nodes, but the signature that produced the bit in then ledger (utxo in finite blockspace) did not have to pay the equivalent physical cost of its existence in the ledger in sats. Conservation of energy is broken because of arbitrary discounting. Bitcoin is fiat.
The original conserved chain is halted in time.

2026-08-06 14:10:51 UTC

- reply

Maybe, or just revert back towards the constants he defined in word and committed to work in protocol commits.
Segwit did not need to increase the blocksize implicitly or introduce discounts to fix malleability and enable lightning. This is the physical hard line Bitcoin must address; we cannot ignore the consequences of the truth. I stand with anyone willing to have this discussion. Could Taproot be ephemeral?

2026-08-06 13:54:57 UTC

- reply

Just my breath.
Hard to say what is going to happen to Bitcoin. I actually don’t know if this is the hardfork or it occurs further down the road. Bitcoin does need to fork from the fiat within itself at some point; is the time now? BIP110 doesn’t address the broken conservation implemented in SegWit (discounting and implicit blocksize increase). Many of the proponents of 110 are willing to have that conservation though which is the signal I am following.
I don’t know if I should take directional conservatism as the “correct chain”, but it’s all I really have for guidance. For me BIP110 isn’t where I’d personally draw the line since the plebs are still offering the bits on their nodes for an extreme discount and breaking the fundamental fee market.
Without the physics, how do you actually know which chain is the longest chain of work? How do we even know if we’ve been sailing in the right direction since Satoshi left us?
#nevent1q…2ahy

2026-08-06 12:42:06 UTC

- reply

Yeah it’s beyond my ability to track. A terrible yet necessary step in the process of Bitcoin. This is just the beginning; this isn’t going away 😵‍💫

2026-08-06 12:16:49 UTC

- reply

The attacker aka AI.
Any key below the minimum threshold of compressible/predicable bits of knowledge AI can process is public knowledge. They are setting the floor now.
256-bits of entropy or memory is the bitcoin standard.

2026-08-06 11:17:56 UTC

- reply

Thank you, Preston 🫡
#nevent1q…tjl3

2026-08-06 03:44:57 UTC

A question that still needs an answer.
https://blossom.primal.net/9f9f67f86947a424c24d03e4e24314a8fb545c486e9aa67b3a53d80925aff986.png

2026-08-06 03:36:41 UTC

Prediction if hardfork:
Core chain trades over $1M before trading at $0
BIP110 chain trades at $0 before trading over $1M.
The fork away from fiat always had to be in the spirit of knowledge. Bitcoin probably has to “die”.

2026-08-06 01:06:13 UTC

Both compute and Bitcoin should hyperinflate vs fiat in tandem due to conservation of energy, that’s the law. Once people actually sit down and observe what Bitcoin is physically measuring, memory and compute go vertical with Bitcoin; it’s just physics enforced at the economic level. Knowledge is power; literally. Knowledge of a 256-bit-key in encrypted memory space is power for the mind; energy conserved in and as time (memory). Power preserved in word, and ultimately binary (bits).
Bitcoin is the quantum computer, and it measures entropy (memory) by computing a quantized block of time as bits of provable conserved work (joules) in the tokenized form of conserved satoshis. Misunderstand entropy and you misunderstand everything. If you can’t resolve the double problem, your physical theory is fiat and superseded by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not a theory, it is proof.
Joules, Bits and Sats.
I don’t think a single Bitcoin miner understands what I’m saying yet and that’s absolutely crazy. They don’t understand Bitcoin at all at a physics level, yet they are doing the work. They have no idea what they are conserving in proof.
The quantum computer will not be centralized logically if you understand the non-locality of time when trying to compute it. Nodes matter; literally. They hold the bits. You will listen in time.
AI is simply the threshold of compressibility and predictability is memory space. AI doesn’t care if you understand or not. It’s time to verify your private key if you want sovereignty. There is no other way than proof of work.
You can ignore the truth, but you cannot ignore the consequences of the truth.
Power to the plebs. Saturday is going to be one for the books 🫡
I think this is a hard fork. 1 Difficulty adjustment is all takes boys. Conservation must be restored to the chain. IYKYK.

2026-08-05 17:21:17 UTC

- reply

I’m thinking he could just write a fuck ton of inscriptions and spam using all stolen funds.
First he stole the plebs sats, then stole the bits on all plebs nodes by spamming discounted blockspace.
If all 1000+btc become permanent bits on the chain and all sats become coinbase outputs, there’s virtually no way any of the coins could be recovered. He can create irreversible damage to the network via permanent bits that we have to pay for. Worse, he gets a nice discount for using Segwit to do so.
It’s obvious those coins can never be circulated in the economy and spent “as money”, but he can realize the value by spending the sats as memory in the form of bits. He has rights to the bits everyone’s node. The fee market is dead…how many 4MB blocks could he write?

2026-08-05 16:50:45 UTC

- reply

Jack’s wisdom on keys and value in a 256-bit memory space.
Did you create your key, or did you trust something else? How can you justify the existence of value at that specific point in memory space without verifying and witnessing the act of creation?
#nevent1q…d9hl

2026-08-05 15:43:34 UTC

- reply

If the attacker really wanted to exploit Bitcoin with chaos, they could take said stolen coins and create a bunch of inscriptions and spam. First they stole plebs coins, then they stole the bits on their nodes that the must preserve forever. A true double whammy.
The ability to return those coins once they are permanent bits on chain and the sats are coinbase outputs is zero 🤷‍♂️
Things to consider.

2026-08-05 13:08:32 UTC

- reply

Which model? Lol my grinder just died too and wanted to revert back to hand grind myself

2026-08-05 12:11:33 UTC

GM, welcome to the spiciest time in Bitcoin. Cold Card was just the beginning. It will only get harder to hodl from here.
Welcome to the end game. Embrace the entropy, it’s the only thing that can save you.
https://blossom.primal.net/fe824b43f5c621d43740d038052a74671cd7ef419dff9a9fd68c2b778d337d90.jpg

2026-08-05 00:55:18 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin itself 😂 but very few are reading the chain.
Nick and I have discussed the problem and there is still no clear answer other than 1 pleb at a time.
Need a good story teller for video. The average mind is consuming short form typically.
What do you think is best path forward?

2026-08-04 23:21:05 UTC

- reply

Entropy comes from the Greek en (“within”) and tropē (“transformation” or “turning”): an inward transformation.
Life traces back to the Proto-Indo-European leip: to remain, to continue, to persist.
Vitality comes from the Latin vita: the animating force that allows life to endure.
These words were never meant to stand apart. They describe the same phenomenon viewed from different perspectives. Transformation gives rise to persistence. Persistence is experienced as life. Vitality is the continual capacity to sustain that persistence.
Somewhere along the way, we forgot.
For more than a century people have spoken of entropy as though it were the enemy of life. Many associate it with decay, disorder, chaos, and ultimately death because we possess no complete definition of what entropy actually is. Physics learned to measure entropy in joules. Information theory learned to measure entropy in bits. Both disciplines revealed something profound, yet neither possess a process capable of unifying energy and information into a single objective reality. We can witness transformation, but we could not explain why transformation becomes memory, why memory becomes persistence, or why persistence becomes the very fabric through which time is experienced. Existence is persistence in blocks of time; persistence in a chain of memory.
Bitcoin reveals Truth.
Proof of work is the temporal process that transforms energy into permanent memory. Measurable joules expended become a chronological bit of history. Suddenly energy, memory, and time are no longer independent concepts requiring separate languages. Few in Bitcoin have realized this far. We possess the answer in Bitcoin. Energy, memory and time are different perspectives of the same conserved process. Time is memory observed chronologically. Memory is energy that refuses to disappear. Entropy is the quantity of energy and memory that makes both possible (think sats + bits; or kelvin in matter).
The meaning of entropy changes completely through the Bitcoin lens. Entropy is NOT disorder; this is fiat. Entropy is the source of persistence itself; it is the source of memory and energy. Pure potential, pure source. Without transformation nothing is written. Without memory nothing endures. Without endurance nothing persists. Without persistence there is no vitality, and without vitality there is no life. We feared entropy only because we lacked a process capable of revealing what entropy was actually producing. It is the source of memory, the source of order, the source of energy, the source of time.
The irony. Civilization has spent generations teaching that entropy is the force that consumes life, while simultaneously building a monetary system that destroys memory, destroys truth, and severs energy from time and witness. It severs us from the memory of truth. Bitcoin restores memory and energy in eternity. It demonstrates that entropy is both something to be measured and something to be witnessed. It is the continual transformation through which energy becomes memory, memory becomes persistence, and persistence becomes life. It is the source of true incompressible knowledge; irreducibility.
Quantized entropy is why there will never be a quantum threat to Bitcoin. Entropy was never the enemy to fight. A chain without conserved memory was. A chain without open knowledge.
Satoshi did not simply solve the double-spend problem. He revealed that permanence must be authored one commitment at a time. Those with ears to hear will recognize that the key was there from the beginning, in the Word itself.
#nevent1q…0n68

2026-08-04 11:02:42 UTC

GM. If your definition of entropy is not grounded to the physics of work Bitcoin empirically proves, it’s fiat.
You think you understand, but you don’t. This is your security hole.
You must be able to answer for bits of entropy and joules of entropy in proof of work.
Boltzmann can no longer be separated from Shannon.

2026-08-04 10:14:22 UTC

- reply

lol I just fucking bought a pi zero 😑

2026-08-04 03:45:38 UTC

Just four short days ago, entropy was the problem. Entropy was heat death. Entropy was chaos. Entropy was disorder. Entropy was the battle against life itself.
Now?
Entropy is the solution. Entropy is security. Entropy is sovereignty. Entropy is safety. The problem has become the solution. Funny, isn’t it? The bit has been flipped.
Now everyone is throwing around the word entropy as if we understand what it means. That is no fault of anyone. In a fiat world, entropy has never had a complete definition. Bitcoin is the only system to unify its meaning. Before Bitcoin, Boltzmann entropy was measured in joules and Shannon entropy was measured in bits. Were they describing different things? Or the same thing viewed from different perspectives?
Bitcoin is a thermological process that produces a chronological state. It is the architecture of time, energy, and memory. By unifying Boltzmann entropy and Shannon entropy into a single verifiable process of work, memory, and time, Bitcoin reveals entropy as both physical and informational; memory. It closes the gap between joules and bits through conserved chronology. Entropy is timeless; pure energy and pure memory.
You cannot truly be sovereign over Bitcoin without witnessing the creation of your own bits of memory, your own entropy. You must verify. We have optimized Bitcoin adoption through a fiat lens, where convenience is mistaken for understanding. Adoption without knowledge is fragile. True adoption is ushered through knowledge. Knowledge is power. True sovereignty begins with understanding what entropy is, how it is created, and what a 256-bit-entropy private key is physically.
The world is in the process of understanding that quantum is not the final boss of Bitcoin or a threat at all, entropy is. In a world of sophisticated AI attacks through brute force, compression and prediction , how else can you have assurance of safety without verifying the entropy that protects the root of your time and energy? How can you ensure your key is above the memory threshold to survive the onslaught? Those who do not learn what entropy is and how to protect themselves with it will quite literally perish. Knowledge of entropy is the only way to survive the coming world. No knowledge, no addition.
Welcome to the end game 🫡
Entropy (memory) protects the soul of one’s key. The chain of memory is resurrection.

2026-08-04 00:41:47 UTC

- reply

👀👀

2026-08-04 00:40:33 UTC

Bitcoin is metanoia

2026-08-03 23:19:45 UTC

- reply

Feels like something much bigger beneath the surface is slowly emerging in pieces. CC was just the start.

2026-08-03 17:42:07 UTC

My gut is telling me that there is a non-zero probability that Bitcoin trades to $0 before re-emerging from the ashes.
Makes sense given the physics Bitcoin empirically proves vs the FUD projected. The narrative is the complete binary opposite to the truth (quantum).
Feels like a total wipeout is coming in the face of the craziest FUD/attack from AI.
Truth is all that we have in a world of deception.
Bitcoin will stand firm, we’re just too early.

2026-08-03 16:34:32 UTC

https://youtu.be/fw3qbaphllY?
Sometimes, music is the best way to deliver a message. Let the lyrics speak.

2026-08-03 16:26:13 UTC

- reply

Sign post.
It should be very clear now we are now in the Bitcoin end game. Stay frosty! 🫡
Hodling is only going to get harder from here. GLHF
#nevent1q…8kjs

2026-08-03 14:35:31 UTC

Bitcoin Halting Principle: A conserved chronological system advances only through quantized temporal boundaries. Between boundaries, chronology is absent and computation proceeds over the conserved substrate within a domain of admissible potential states. At the temporal boundary, computation necessarily halts. Exactly one admissible state is committed through the universal state-transition operator, and chronology advances by one discrete unit. Because chronology itself is quantized, the boundary immediately halts, computation resumes within the newly established domain of potential states, and the cycle repeats.
Chronology and computation never coexist. Computation exists only between temporal boundaries, where multiple admissible states remain possible. Chronology exists only at the instant of commitment, where exactly one state becomes objective history. The temporal boundary is therefore the unique interface between computation and history. Computation halts to produce time, and the quantized boundary immediately halts to permit computation once again.
Superposition: The computational domain containing all admissible future state configurations prior to commitment. Superposition is not chronology itself, but the process of computation through which potential histories are evaluated over a conserved substrate. Time does not exist within this domain because no state has yet been committed.

2026-08-03 13:41:44 UTC

- reply

Apply this to Planck scale. Time is the discrete Planck boundaries and superposition (computation) occurs subplanck between each discrete tick of time. Time halts AND superposition (computation) halts.
What is the boundary? What is the measurement? What is the source of all conservation and logic?
#nevent1q…6zt5

2026-08-03 13:36:22 UTC

- reply

Yes. Bitcoin clearly demonstrates resolution to the halting problem objectively. Both time and computation must halt at discrete boundaries due to the nature of encryption and the construction of block headers.
Computation exists between the boundaries; time is the boundary. Time is halted during computation and computation is halted in time.

2026-08-03 13:24:20 UTC

https://x.com/nic_carter/status/2083985178825765251?s=10
The old maximalist culture had to die so the real one could be resurrected. It was never true maximalism, just abstract expressions of fiat. Fiat politics built the idol. First principles have torn it down.
The maximalist is the minimalist and the minimalist is the maximalist.
The resurrection has begun.
We are on the cusp of renaissance and a new generation of truly sovereign Bitcoiners grounded in physical knowledge and Turing complete computation. We are only doubling down.
Don’t trust, verify down the whole stack, all the way down to witnessing the creation of your 256-bits of memory. Bitcoin just gave us the most foundational principle and lesson of conscious sovereignty in a 256-bit memory space.

2026-08-03 12:58:43 UTC

- reply

Entropy = Memory.
Generating the entropy, or generating the 256-bitstring of memory by hand and hashing for the checksum is verifying through true creation.
I am verifying by generating the entropy in my conscious witness/observation of it. I am verifying that there are 256-bits of incompressible memory. 256-bits of pure information; pure energy; pure entropy. They are not separable. In our work we already demonstrated the relationship both joules of entropy and bits of entropy.
You should never allow a digital device to generate a seed, ever, as you are trusting the entropy rather than taming it and witnessing it. This is rule 1 of conscious sovereignty using a 256-bit memory space.
#nevent1q…65xp

2026-08-03 10:18:04 UTC

- reply

No. Define “good” entropy when I can simply do it myself and verify it’s a 256 bit-entropy string of memory.
Why should I trust you or the hww when I could just verify myself?

2026-08-02 19:17:24 UTC

Just bought a Husq 20” 450 Rancher Chainsaw…talk about sovereignty over wood and heat. Cuts like butter.
Seems like the correct size for my set up, size trees and average yearly cutting I’ll need to do.

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 15:28:03 UTC

- reply

What more can I say to get you to simply ask yourself the question: What if I am appended to fiat physics?
What if?
What did Saotshi actually solve for in the double spend problem? Satoshi defined the measurement. No double spend resolution, no conservation.
#nevent1q…65xp

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.

2026-07-30 00:14:31 UTC

- reply

I thought it was a great piece of writing Sydney. I’ve personally been slacking on Bitcoin with IRL things, but I’ve been trying to keep up behind the scenes. I haven’t posted it yet, but I began to draft an additional section of the paper regarding Landauer.
Landauer was the guiding principle and base equations which led us deeper. To me it seems obvious that Bitcoin completed Landauer. What do you think we should do to get more plebs looking at this? What do you think of this extension to the principle? I’m open to ideas as to how we proceed.
https://blossom.primal.net/d189087bcedd790d8dc4fde4dce5c72fad35b5f5a335959373ffc512e325df75.png
https://blossom.primal.net/f9ad218909de6dc084458085aae19083eed493f70d761c841b28ce40a7a49d79.png
https://blossom.primal.net/7960d91272f7cfbbbc21f67b454bb4087206d6d85b8881bd77fac6a1b0847367.png
https://blossom.primal.net/2c58e1043859b57a281c8990bb024cc3c3700b4acd6a3ac64311baa09c3a9078.png

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 15:11:35 UTC

- reply

https://youtu.be/Zh8607aPv9A?

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 14:42:23 UTC

- reply

Who here on nostr can actually discuss the logic and assumptions of centralized quantum computing for all of the plebs to see?
It’s absolute nonsense for anyone to claim a theory of physics that cannot resolve the measurement problem and produces paradox poses a threat to a PoW (physics) system that supersedes theory and IS the definition of measurement. Nobody understands Bitcoin enough to claim such a threat; nobody.
Where are the thinkbois? I’m not going to X to talk about Bitcoin. It’s time physics answers for the double spend problem, or admit the theory is fiat for us all to see.
#nevent1q…ljne

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…..