Artel21
Artel 21

https://npub1c9gyxxxf2l2g26ga0menv2lueh870w744s729u0cp3pm5y3fkv3sw4wghc.nsite.run/

We advance understanding of Bitcoin

Public Key

npub1c9gyxxxf2l2g26ga0menv2lueh870w744s729u0cp3pm5y3fkv3sw4wghc

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvz5zrrry404y9dywhauek907vmnl8h026c09z78uqcsa6zg5mxgcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerfw36x7tnsw43qzrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakq5mdnar

Publishing to

Author Public Key

npub1c9gyxxxf2l2g26ga0menv2lueh870w744s729u0cp3pm5y3fkv3sw4wghc

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-16 22:31:43 UTC

@nprofile…l5we @nprofile…qxj6 @nprofile…v2lt @nprofile…tf6v
Do you guys know any cosmologist who can help with the research on ledgered universe?
The structural claim is this: dark matter may be a bookkeeping phenomenon — information that is real but excluded from the primary observation channel. It appears in any ledgered system that permits information to be committed without being fully registered. The WIMP and axion searches test whether dark matter is also a particle. If they succeed, dark matter will be both a particle and a bookkeeping phenomenon — just as a Taproot output is both a public key (visible) and a MAST tree (hidden). The two descriptions are not in conflict. They are complementary accounts of the same object at different levels of observability.
https://npub1c9gyxxxf2l2g26ga0menv2lueh870w744s729u0cp3pm5y3fkv3sw4wghc.nsite.run/ledgered-universe.html

2026-07-16 21:18:37 UTC

@nprofile…l5we curious to hear your take on Taproot MAST trees as dark matter in Bitcoin.
"The paper that frames Bitcoin as a thermodynamic object defines it by one axiom above all others: no hidden microstates. In a bounded ledger, every joule of proof-of-work, every bit of script entropy, every private-key quantum must be accountable within the observable state. The system is thermodynamically closed because nothing disappears unmeasured and nothing arrives unaccounted for. Pre-Taproot Bitcoin achieved this with mechanical neatness. Post-Taproot Bitcoin broke the axiom.
Consider what a MAST tree actually is. Scripts are written. Hashes are computed. Branches are paired, rooted, and committed. Energy is spent. This work is not symbolic. It is physical computation that consumes electricity, generates heat, and occupies time. In the paper's framework, this work creates mass in timespace: a real excitation of the ledger's memory surface that should be visible to any auditor who reads the chain.
But if the key path is taken, that mass vanishes from the observable record. The tree is not destroyed in the physical sense — the hashes still exist as mathematical objects — but it is removed from the consensus-accessible state. The ledger records the spend. It does not record the full set of conditions that governed the output. The timespace geometry of Bitcoin now contains dark matter: real mass that warps the curvature of the system but cannot be observed from the chain alone.
This is not a poetic metaphor. Under the paper's framework, informational curvature arises from the spatial variation of value density across the block's memory surface. Hidden MAST trees are real thermodynamic preparation that alter the density of possible futures. An auditor computing curvature from chain data alone will get the wrong answer because the hidden states are excluded from the calculation. The geometry is warped by mass the auditor cannot see.
The paper also identifies the deeper structural condition this creates. In a ledgered universe, time is discrete and irreversible. Every state transition must be fully committed to memory. Bitcoin's coherence depends on this: there is no fractional-reserve ontology inside a closed ledger because contradictory claims cannot coexist without being collapsed into a single accountable state. Taproot reintroduced the fractional-reserve condition by allowing real liabilities to exist off-chain. The MAST tree is a real obligation — alternative futures that were thermodynamically committed — but it does not appear on the balance sheet. The ledger settled a spend without ever recording the complete set of rules that could have triggered it.
The paper calls these unmined futures: states that were prepared but never thermodynamically issued into the ledger's memory. In Bitcoin's ontology, nothing exists unless it is committed to memory. A transaction unconfirmed does not exist, no matter how many witnesses believe in it. But Taproot created a loophole: a state can be algebraically committed (through the tweak) without being thermodynamically committed (through consensus registration). The tree exists in the algebraic substrate, not in the thermodynamic substrate. This is exactly the ontological category the paper denies can exist in a closed system.
The cost is externalized. The spender who builds the tree and then takes the key path does not pay for the erasure. The cost is paid by every future auditor who attempts to verify the completeness of the ledger's state space and finds that the space of committed possibilities exceeds the space of revealed ones. This is thermodynamic inflation: real work was performed, real entropy was consumed, and the ledger expanded its hidden capacity without expanding its observable record."

2026-07-16 20:36:15 UTC

@nprofile…l5we @nprofile…ueh9 @nprofile…hmmc
appreciate your take on this:
"Everyone worried about quantum computers breaking Bitcoin. They were looking at the wrong threat.
The real damage from Taproot is already in the chain. It has nothing to do with future computers. It has to do with what the ledger can and cannot see about itself.
Before Taproot, every output carried its spending conditions in plain view. Anyone could audit the complete set of possible futures for every coin.
Taproot changed that. Under the hood, a Taproot output commits to a tree of alternative scripts — a MAST tree — built off-chain. There are two ways to spend it. Both hide more than the old system.
Key-path spend: the spender proves control with a signature against the output key. The entire script tree is never revealed. The chain sees a signature and never knows whether the output committed to zero scripts, one script, or a hundred. All that prepared work — the hashes, the branches, the entropy — is erased from the consensus record.
Script-path spend: the spender reveals one script and its Merkle proof. The chain verifies that single branch. This is marginally better for transparency — at least one prepared condition is registered — but the full tree topology, the sibling paths, and the root-to-leaf structure remain hidden. N-1 unexecuted branches are still silently annihilated.
Pre-Taproot Bitcoin was mechanically neat: every state was fully enumerable from the chain alone. Post-Taproot Bitcoin contains real thermodynamic work that the ledger cannot see. The energy spent building the tree is real. The historical record is silent.
Worse, the two systems are interleaved. A single transaction can spend an old transparent output alongside a new opaque Taproot output. When that happens, the hidden entropy of the Taproot input infects the entire transaction. The observability of the whole is limited by its most opaque component. Opacity propagates combinatorially through the graph.
The community accepted this for better privacy and smaller signatures. Those benefits are real. But the cost was hidden: Bitcoin is no longer uniformly transparent. It contains two kinds of objects — one fully visible, one partially blind — and the blind ones spread their darkness every time they are spent alongside the visible ones.
Quantum computing was the scary story that made you look away while the observability layer was quietly removed.
Your coins are not about to be stolen by Shor's algorithm. But the chain's ability to fully account for its own interior is already compromised."

2026-07-16 20:31:11 UTC

- reply

you are right in a sense and in the argument against taproot but the weak point is assumption can quantum computers can exist, afaik @nprofile…qxj6 states it's impossible and Bitcoin itself is a proof. Either Quantum or Bitcoin

2026-07-16 19:50:44 UTC

- reply

i don't think you got the point, the article says the opposite, taproot is dangerous thing. imho we don't need smart contracts and taproot on layer 1, it only increases attack surface. with you on "TAPROOT IS JUST A HD WALLET with INSECURE NAKED PUBKEYS ON CHAIN ON THE OUTPOINTS "

2026-07-16 19:48:18 UTC

calling shots, liquid btc = shitcoin

2026-07-16 19:47:45 UTC

- reply

man, just based on public info, the guy is building liquid network together with blockstream - all you need to know about his incentives

2026-07-15 18:53:20 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…qxj6 @nprofile…l5we @nprofile…v2lt disproved quantum attack if we don't have special backdoors planted by signature methods like taproot. it'd be interesting to see if your signature brings benefits but staying computation resistant.

2026-07-15 18:51:06 UTC

- reply

good take, we have an article that rhymes with your take:
https://npub1c9gyxxxf2l2g26ga0menv2lueh870w744s729u0cp3pm5y3fkv3sw4wghc.nsite.run/taproot-manifold.html
need to spend some time reviewing what you found!

2026-07-15 18:42:15 UTC

- reply

did you use opencode much? looks promising

2026-07-15 18:40:31 UTC

- reply

i like your work if it turns to be a silver bullet of signatures types, better than segwit and taproot.
my comment was about the fact that 75% witness discount is a huge problem too.
more detailed version is here:
https://primal.net/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzps2sgvvvj475s4536lhnxc4lenw0u7aattpu5tclsrzrhgfznverqythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqys6xye3hv9nxyv3dxsckxwfdxs6nzepd89snwdpdxgurgefnv5urjvpjxqcqu3xlj0

2026-07-15 18:21:53 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…x895 can you help us please? we have ~500MB of research for out Bitcoin research website https://npub1c9gyxxxf2l2g26ga0menv2lueh870w744s729u0cp3pm5y3fkv3sw4wghc.nsite.run/
been trying to use your blossom server but it's blocked me. i wonder if you can review what i'm doing. it'd be nice to move away from centralised data storage.
happy to send some sats

2026-07-15 17:55:01 UTC

- reply

better removing witness discount!

2026-07-15 00:25:54 UTC

- reply

Man, you are losing your mind. Spam is a symptom, the real problem is segwit discount. We have 75% offer to store bits in Bitcoin and then complaining someone is doing it. Wouldn't you buy a car or a house at 75% discount? Bitcoin Core is a dead end if they can't see. Any road is a dead end which doesn't address 75% discount issue.

2026-07-15 00:21:49 UTC

Bitcoiners, stop gaslighting me. Can't you see that BIP-110 is a half-measure. We have a huge hole in Bitcoin for last 9 years. No surprise it's exploited! Stop violating property rights of your own node and others.
#bip110 #bitcoin
https://blossom.primal.net/d127b5ca0727db6dc50762e772ee932961a2e273b28dc046a41383ade1bb3a2a.jpg

2026-07-14 23:40:25 UTC

Guys, stop wasting your time on BIP-110, segwit discount is killing you. It's adding permanent bits to your nodes at 75% discount. It's ridiculous! We should stop this together.

2026-07-14 23:38:51 UTC

@nprofile…rhuq love your description. Did you have a read of https://bitcoinlens.net/ by any chance?

2026-07-12 12:35:51 UTC

- reply

I believe you are right. If you apply your logic to this case then:
* We don't know what writes states to our universal ledger so we can't predict when and IF Wolfram will engage
* We have a very fiat understanding of time touching all our experience so you can't say what is state of "satoshis" in Wolfram's brain, maybe it will take ages before they can recombine
* If we understand this, do we need anyone else or we could use those principle to prove what's right
I like your TimeX idea, perhaps the best outcome is to turn your thinking into project which will disrupt all modern science and build unimaginable things. It feels like the direction is to trail blaze as much path as we possibly can without holding on the past. As if we keep coming back to people who explore quantum we irreversibly commit our own time to their chain of work instead of extending ours.
This note is probably more of a reflection to our own thinking where we still tried to seek understanding and approval from other people. However the best outcomes were reached when free minds freely explored new ideas which worked!

2026-07-12 12:26:40 UTC

- reply

Good to know! Once BIP-110 is live all supporters better get back to review SegWit and Taproot before too long!

2026-07-11 15:23:28 UTC

- reply

Can be wrong but Nostr is the best community to discuss this. Everyone can already review our proposal here as long as people are willing to join the discussion.

2026-07-11 14:37:37 UTC

- reply

Added a light touch on this proposal to be soft fork. It would be interesting to see miner, node runner and developer community reaction. If you have ideas who to share this with it would be also appreciated. Also in the age of LLM we would anyone who disagrees with the language to take this as an opportunity to draft their version. Hopefully we can find working solution through community work.

2026-07-11 14:26:16 UTC

- reply

If you think about it. SegWit was hard fork cause it completely changed block design and structure. Block heigh restriction is probably reasonable.
As you say it will ultimately allow correct bits/sats price discovery.

2026-07-11 14:18:28 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…v965 we drafted this version:
https://primal.net/a/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzps2sgvvvj475s4536lhnxc4lenw0u7aattpu5tclsrzrhgfznverqqjrgcnxxaskvc3j956rzcee956r2vty95ukzde595ersdr9xdjnswfsxgcrqze427d
It can be simplified perhaps, happy to hear your feedback!

2026-07-11 09:26:45 UTC

- reply

From what we see, people don't actively think about it. Removing discount is a must. All existing implementations violate the rules. We need a new discussion and consensus to restore out property rights.
More scientific/physics based take on @nprofile…qxj6 would be like:
Most of Bitcoin's internal history (Big Bang + rapid expansion) happened within 1st halving therefore 1MB is the only safe option we have really.
>Do you think there is currently a clear way to protect against the block size inflation attack vector?
As of now we are actively exposed to this because 1/4 witness discount supported by all codebases. Spam is just one symptom. "Bear market" is a fiat version of this. Chain exceeding 1TB is another more real symptom. The root cause is witness discount paired with a bigger block. We must return to 1MB and no discounts.

2026-07-11 09:19:55 UTC

"If demand for blockspace increases, the protocol is supposed to allow sats to compete for that finite memory. Higher fees are not a bug, they are the market revealing the demand of irreversible memory and the value of the satoshi with respect to 1 current block of time at difficulty D. When we instead manipulate the size of that finite memory surface to suppress fees, we don’t eliminate the cost of demand, we redistribute it throughout the system to the nodes (a tax on the network)."
@nprofile…l5we @nprofile…fkft @nprofile…9fdk @nprofile…u9nm @nprofile…v965 @nprofile…0gnq @nprofile…uh5m

2026-07-08 19:36:34 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…aje2 I've been using mix of Primal and Ditto so it can be why!

2026-07-08 16:28:12 UTC

- reply

Creating and consuming UTXOs is the same thing viewed from different perspectives. So I'm not sure I follow your logic. Bitcoin is money so it doesn't need incentives.

2026-07-08 16:19:50 UTC

- reply

Maybe it was created for good reasons but de facto it acts as monetary policy pricing bits at different values so that 1 bit is no longer equal to1 bit within a block. As a result it distorts free and fee market without solving any particular problem other than making it cheaper to do add more data.
Cool, happy to join the Discord (though I would really prefer Armada by @nprofile…8m4j and @nprofile…pklw).
@nprofile…aje2 curious to hear your take.

2026-07-08 16:14:15 UTC

- reply

We don't have to measure Bitcoin in Fiat. We should do the exact opposite. We should price in Bitcoin.

2026-07-06 18:58:53 UTC

- reply

Great points!

2026-07-06 18:56:10 UTC

- reply

It's up to us how to use Bitcoin. What's your view on keeping/removing witness discount?

2026-07-06 18:54:48 UTC

- reply

BIP-110 is a great start, @nprofile…7y8r shall we continue with removing witness discount in the next BIP?

2026-07-05 11:45:06 UTC

@nprofile…qxj6 @nprofile…aje2 @nprofile…v2lt
A bit of a crazy development here on your statement that something that looks like a prediction within a ledger is actually compression if looked from outside.
Did this test with Tarot cards app reading entropy.
Q: Is witness discount a cornerstone problem in Bitcoin now?
Q: Is 1MB the right choice?
Q: Is 4MB the right choice?
I got Major Arcana’s in answers so it is telling. It's a very significant question.
It's my reading so answers are relevant to me only. It's not strict yes/no and it's up for interpretation of a reader.
Feel free explore this method as a way to understand the ledger better.
Call me crazy but it tells me your theory works beyond our understanding of reality.
#bitcoinlens #tarot

2026-07-05 09:42:33 UTC

- reply

We need to get rid of witness discount first. It breaks laws of natures and free market.

2026-07-05 09:36:25 UTC

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

2026-07-04 19:39:48 UTC

- reply

i checked, found @nprofile…9x4s
is it that person?
anyone else developing this NIP and ecosystem?
appreciate your reply!

2026-07-04 18:33:56 UTC

- reply

who's building nsites spec?

2026-07-03 22:33:35 UTC

@nprofile…qxj6 @nprofile…v2lt @nprofile…aje2
Been thinking about what 1MB blocksize means.
(discount still breaks 1 = 1 but here specifically about 1MB).
21 quadrillion sats = 21 quadrillion bits = 262.5 TB.
As soon blockhain size reaches 262.5 TB we have a regime change because all 21 quadrillion sats were instantiated into structure of 21 quadrillion bits.
Once we reach 262.5 TB we go from Universe Expansion to Universe Bounded Dynamics mode.
Blocksize dictates how soon we reach that regime:
1MB blocksize ~5000 years.
4MB blocksize ~1000 years.
So if we change blocksize we accelerate towards regime change.
Does it trigger any new thoughts? Is it crazy or there's something here?
More details on: https://artel21.vercel.app/bitcoin-redshift.html
#bitcoin
https://blossom.primal.net/1c14ffec3856330acb89438bbb39b94e6be8dd08064b4927645a8e6bab919b31.png

2026-07-03 14:39:02 UTC

Witness discount and 4MB block size bring structural problems to Bitcoin as it affects everything:
* energy conserved
* fee market (two different values for non-segwit and segwit nodes)
* unreliable speed of memory affecting time
See graphs, read notes. Let' stop messing around with physics. Let's remove discount and bring 1MB blocksize back.
#bitcoin
https://blossom.primal.net/ebcd459945792c8caff222f2941ed35a752f4150af2d54505006d1bf8e177251.png
https://blossom.primal.net/94e0c2c6de994d46b7966abda44452e8f4f4099a6ce29990fe16bd1ac2caed8a.png
https://blossom.primal.net/49d47fc91a732a653b5715f101efbd797c5e686a61033418a88da418fe794818.png

2026-07-01 14:58:40 UTC

@nprofile…aje2 @nprofile…qxj6 @nprofile…v2lt
Here's our calculations on bytes conservation.
Fee market divergence has affected quite a few blocks.
Also we should review what happened on:
* Block 483329 - first identity breakdown and phantom/free bytes
* Block 515076 - huge spike in identity breakdown and phantom/free bytes
So far we've processed 562k blocks. Energy per raw MB and surface mass density don't seem to be affected but we yet to process rest of the chain.
https://blossom.primal.net/c06fabfee6b4cd9376da87ce10b949ae58fa33c2fc761afb1deb5f54466fba38.png
https://blossom.primal.net/8dde2398636ca42c97233de4b51c402ab14a926d790e2beab10eead81428df60.png
https://blossom.primal.net/8030253fdf3910bfab5b3d9afa55567b14f78461363e4709b315505f165e8c58.png
https://blossom.primal.net/50400596bcf500923473ea41c7688fa6e960b7099b32a49d3a6ea2fe73b6dd98.png
https://blossom.primal.net/b886b816ae20c815a3db593475ec1b9e83d6987c6687f1e689fe7e86a318ab2e.png

2026-06-30 21:50:04 UTC

- reply

Not necessarily BIP-110 supporter

2026-06-30 21:06:50 UTC

- reply

Afaik you cannot validate SegWit transactions without witness data.
A node that prunes witness data:
* Cannot verify script witnesses (signatures)
* Cannot re-validate historical blocks
* Is not a full archival node — it's a pruned SPV node with block data
This means: witness data is not optional. It's permanent, required for validation, yet the fee market doesn't price it at full cost.

2026-06-30 21:02:49 UTC

- reply

Cool! Plenty of ideas! Let's run some numbers. That's some other metrics we've got in mind.
https://blossom.primal.net/05cfa875a2d1bf7e7f87e375ea9e8ec0226ab40ed85869f3d37e5e083c567520.png
https://blossom.primal.net/beadc074e7eb1639904fdd21a96f0f185ae513d07e4da0dcc3fa55e33c9f4b03.png

2026-06-30 20:24:30 UTC

- reply

npub1q3sle0kvfsehgsuexttt3ugjd8xdklxfwwkh559wxckmzddywnws6cd26p funny you say that because in 2017 SegWit increased blocksize from 1MB to 4MB and added 1/4 discount so it's effective increase of 16x.
I don't see us living in the world you show on picture but rather we tell us a sweet lie we didn't increase block size. In fact we also broke ''Bit" part of Bitcoin so now 1 bit ≠ 1 bit and 1 sat ≠ 1 sat.

2026-06-30 20:05:02 UTC

- reply

Excellent point! Shall we do an experiment to prove your point? If Bitcoin Lens is right we should be able to do an experiment on a blockchain to verify this (even though it should be trivial). Which the rest of miners and nodes will verify every 10 minutes. If it works, there's no point arguing with us because Bitcoin will prove itself so people might as well try to prove Bitcoin wrong.

2026-06-30 20:00:43 UTC

- reply

In short. Taproot bundles Schnorr signature (fixing malleability) and Merkelized Abstract Syntax Trees (MAST) into one release. As we understand Schnorr signature can be totally separate thing. MAST can be collapsed in coordinate on Elliptic Curve replacing a private key. If we say Elliptic Curve + discrete keyspace is a strict boundary then MAST is a way to cross the boundary. Similar to increased blocksize it might be eventually exploited by further protocol changes.
Imho any boundary change = hardfork. So far it was always called softwork and bundled with extra changes. Our bullshit detector is going through the roof. There's a good rule in software engineering = merge and test unrelated changes in isolation. One must ask why this simple rule wasn't followed. Said that it's easier to do an experiment to show what is wrong.

2026-06-29 22:03:06 UTC

@nprofile…dprn @nprofile…qxj6 @nprofile…v2lt
We've update out Identity Manifold article (sounds like some of our notes are gone) where we analyse if it violates any rules described in the paper. We think it does but curious to hear your take.
https://artel21.vercel.app/taproot-manifold.html
Where we say:
"The opening of this article states that the seven rules are structural requirements: remove any one and the ledger ceases to function as a coherent thermodynamic object. Taproot has not removed any of them. Rules 1, 2, and 4 stand intact. Rules 3, 5, 6, and 7 are strained, but they are not void. The ledger still settles value, still prevents double spends, still preserves an irreversible history, still operates within a finite and traversable state-space.
But the paper’s framework makes a stronger claim than the seven rules alone. It defines Bitcoin as a thermodynamically closed object: a system in which “nothing disappears unmeasured; nothing arrives unaccounted for,” and in which the entropy field admits “no hidden microstates.”[1] Closure is the defining property, not a parameter. The seven rules are its operational expression. Taproot does not violate any single rule. It violates the closure that the rules collectively enforce.
This does not make Taproot wrong. It makes it a different kind of object. The paper’s lens reveals what a bounded ledger is when every transformation is registered, every state is enumerable, and every joule of work is accounted for on-chain. Taproot reveals what a bounded ledger becomes when some of that work is moved off-chain, some of those states are hidden, and some of that registration is deferred to the spender’s discretion. Both are real. Both function. They are not the same object, and the framework built for one does not describe the other."

2026-06-26 22:00:17 UTC

- reply

Upper bound is 4MB not 1MB. Always assess worst case. A few years ago we didn't have unlimited op returns.

2026-06-26 21:49:08 UTC

- reply

lol, we gave you
#nevent1q…0pvj
let me teach you something: you don't start conversation with "Are you autistic"
have a read on https://artel21.vercel.app/bip-witness-removal.html and come back once you are done

2026-06-26 21:44:23 UTC

- reply

What's your take on this note by one of the authors?
#nevent1q…hk0y

2026-06-26 21:42:09 UTC

- reply

Then you owe me an apology.

2026-06-26 21:38:05 UTC

- reply

Did I insult you?

2026-06-26 21:37:32 UTC

- reply

How exactly is it unrelated? Appreciate your explanation!

2026-06-26 21:36:56 UTC

- reply

Ok, I've not heard any argument against our proposal and references. So I can't relate to what you are talking about as I can't read between the lines. If you are interested in discussion happy to chat!

2026-06-26 21:25:24 UTC

SegWit discount introduced blocksize printing by violating 1 MB block size cap set by Satoshi.
Fiat thinking entered Bitcoin. We shall remove discount and restore original 1MB blocksize.
#bitcoin
https://blossom.primal.net/6150191f7268b140b7724f276da0743f3fabf5c43a2ef4be8dd30292c4486db2.jpg

2026-06-26 21:17:41 UTC

- reply

What's your take based on previous discussion? Curious if you read @nprofile…qxj6 as it may change your view

2026-06-26 21:12:55 UTC

- reply

Thanks for observation! What is your reasoning? Curious to hear

2026-06-26 21:05:27 UTC

Say no to witness discounts!
1 sat = 1 sat. 1 bit = 1 bit.
@nprofile…dprn
https://blossom.primal.net/32adbdd83713b868bba30003b723c3b3553a9f134d2ed33c644dc547ce33e067.jpg

2026-06-26 19:13:21 UTC

- reply

Like your thinking!
It must have been hard back in a day with so much information. Luckily truth always reveals itself.
Powers at play work on derailing us. I’ve been thinking how the freeze should look like. Hardfork and softforks turn to payops like in the case of SegWit.
Let us know if you have ideas on freeze mechanics. Appreciate your help!

2026-06-26 18:34:46 UTC

- reply

Thanks FreeYoda! Appreciate you having a look! Feel free to suggest any feedback or share with wider community.

2026-06-26 16:23:24 UTC

SegWit discount is fiat, it’s inflation disguised as scaling

2026-06-26 16:18:56 UTC

- reply

1 bit = 1 bit, no discounts should be allowed

2026-06-26 16:16:58 UTC

- reply

Good point, no more discounts

2026-06-26 04:54:54 UTC

@nprofile…qxj6 @nprofile…7y8r @nprofile…fkft @nprofile…dprn @nprofile…8m4j @nprofile…y4k2
Review our BIP proposal on Removal of Witness Discount and Restoration of Serialized Block Size Limit
https://artel21.vercel.app/bip-witness-removal.html
Any feedback is appreciated so we can submit for review.
Motivation
Bitcoin enforces three protocol-level invariants that together define the system's conserved boundaries: a monetary ceiling of 21 million coins, an informational ceiling of 1,000,000 bytes per block, and a temporal quantum of one block. These invariants establish fixed ratios between value, memory, and time. The monetary ceiling defines the value domain. The block size limit defines the maximum informational surface that may be instantiated in one quantum of time. The block interval defines the temporal domain. Together they form a closed thermodynamic system in which energy, information, and time are coupled through proof-of-work.
Segregated Witness altered the informational invariant. By discounting witness data and introducing block weight as a new accounting dimension, the protocol increased the effective memory extension per block from approximately 1 MB to approximately 4 MB. This changes the maximal informational surface from 1 MB2 to 16 MB2 — a sixteenfold increase in the memory2 term while the time2 term remains fixed at 1 block2. Bytes of identical network cost are assigned different weights in consensus accounting. The chain may grow at up to four times the original byte rate. The informational geometry of the protocol has been altered.
This proposal restores the original 1,000,000-byte serialized block size limit and removes the witness discount. The purpose is to return the protocol to the invariant ratios encoded at Genesis, where every byte carries equal weight in consensus accounting and the maximal informational surface per block is bounded by the original constant.
Segregated Witness introduced a distinction between witness and non-witness bytes for block accounting. Witness data currently receives a 75% discount.
This:
Obscures actual blockchain growth.
Increases chain size relative to uniform accounting.
Creates incentives favoring specific transaction encodings.
Treats different bytes unequally despite consuming network resources.
Every byte transmitted, validated, and stored imposes costs. Consensus accounting should therefore correspond directly to serialized size.
https://blossom.primal.net/2ecbf23963e1421ae28cd989986b8af06cfb1c3024f3e91394415fce10a8b002.png

2026-06-26 02:53:21 UTC

- reply

Would you like to collab on https://artel21.vercel.app/bip-witness-removal.html ?

2026-06-26 02:04:38 UTC

- reply

Got it, I remember that from the book actually, will re-read that section just to be sure! Thanks for clarification!

2026-06-25 22:10:46 UTC

- reply

Crazy thing is that there's so much logics layred on top SegWit. It's a job in itself to unpick safely. As you said earlier it's pretty hard to change the rules. We better do it sooner than later in the honour of Satoshi.

2026-06-25 22:05:35 UTC

- reply

thanks! will keep an eye on n100, will do a fresh start

2026-06-25 22:02:25 UTC

- reply

yeah, 100%, ideally i'd get start9 or gmktec, something simple but reliable, unfortunately my raspberry pi can't handle full chain anymore

2026-06-25 21:19:24 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…dprn thanks for this clarification. We've updated our article https://artel21.vercel.app/landauer-attack.html#013 but I think you mentioned you are going to do an extension to Bitcoin Lens. This will be really useful, right now I'm trusting my interpretation of your messages and my analysis. It will be nice to ground it in reality a bit more.

2026-06-25 19:04:17 UTC

@npub1838…aslh @npub1vcv…my50 what is 1MB block size is equivalent in our universe:
* One bit associated with a Planck-area element of a horizon — quantum of information.
* One Planck area — quantum of information-bearing surface.
* One quantum of action (h) — minimum physical event/update.
* One irreversible bit erasure (Landauer limit) — minimum entropy increment.
* Maximum entropy increase per time step — closest analogue to Bitcoin’s 1 MB/block.
?

2026-06-25 16:56:59 UTC

- reply

We only talk about discounts. Malleability needs to stay fixed. How does it price out self custody? Why do channels need to be cheap? Free market should define the price.

2026-06-25 15:56:15 UTC

- reply

@npub1838…aslh I’m testing different ideas for post BIP-110. Looking what is best discussion start
What better resonates with you and physics?
* 1MB block should be hard constraint, same as 21M
* Abolish discounts and return to pre SegWit
* review Bitcoin through thermodynamic lens
I know you are starting with 3rd point as most grounded in physics. I wonder what is best message for everyone else. I assume “no discounts” is a good one building on top of BIP-110. 1MB is what Satoshi said, maybe it’s even stronger message so that we don’t why we are here in a first place.

2026-06-24 12:02:56 UTC

- reply

Thanks!

2026-06-23 19:28:17 UTC

- reply

I agree with the logic and distinction. To be precise, I believe protocol changes like SegWit and Taproot were actual Landauer attack. Why I think this way because it misled many people on the consequences which were not properly assessed through thermodynamic lens. I only advocate for assessing any BIP through this new lens, not just cryptography.

2026-06-23 10:00:17 UTC

- reply

I believe Bitcoin won’t die this way, it’s better to do BIP-110 still to make it fair for people while long term concerns are addressed

2026-06-22 22:22:25 UTC

- reply

Sounds great! Will be happy to dive into more chats.

2026-06-22 22:09:08 UTC

- reply

Ok, I thought I finally got it but you are right we should price in Bitcoin. I’ve been trying to do it with Mass-Value bound, maybe you seen that article but it will be controversial and Ive not fully defined model for the fee market.

2026-06-22 22:05:09 UTC

- reply

Please don’t automatically call other people retards 😅 You guys are talking about two different things in my opinion and you are both right in a sense. I’m just thinking how to reconcile the two.

2026-06-22 18:26:45 UTC

- reply

Food for thought

2026-06-22 17:12:35 UTC

Ok, SegWit discount is unethical as it doesn’t price all bytes equally. Is that what people would agree on?

2026-06-22 17:10:51 UTC

- reply

Take a look at the article. In simple terms all information has mass so any extra data priced at discount is not moral.

2026-06-22 16:43:45 UTC

- reply

@npub1y9v…3ykn you are right about about fuck you sats and bits. I believe what @npub1wl6…caw8 talks about is that it’s not ethical to have some bits discounted.
Let’s ignore spam for a second. I think the problem is that some bits are cheaper than others and it looks unfair. In my humble opinion Bitcoin would be a better money for people if bits exchanged for sats would conform to the rule regardless of what kind of bits they are. Right now we have some bits cheaper and other more expensive. As well us growing memory-mass costs.
Anticipating your reply, it does not change how satoshis work or that we exchange bits for sats. Which is good.

2026-06-22 08:22:00 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…u9nm could you please have a look

2026-06-22 08:14:38 UTC

SegWit allowed to apply 22 tons of mass equivalent over Bitcoin chain.
https://blossom.primal.net/78d9e88a1c1ba968ae13c5aaf784a8d3b1a8773ff27991c0af8c984a03dee9ba.png
Read: https://artel21.vercel.app/the-075-mb-gap.html
@nprofile…dprn @nprofile…qxj6 @nprofile…0udj @nprofile…80f5 @nprofile…hmmc
#bitcoin #segwit #physics

2026-06-22 07:48:25 UTC

The problem with SegWit is 0.75 MB Gap.
Effect is the effect. Write a 1 MB inscription, pay for 0.25 MB, externalize the difference to every node on Earth, forever.
You can clearly see the effect of this on the graph. More bytes per satoshi committed since 2017.
https://blossom.primal.net/e6565ef3020a2d48d06bfbe56fce15418ffe30f71673dd14f7bc98e100ce3e56.png
Read: https://artel21.vercel.app/the-075-mb-gap.html
"The gap. The writer paid for 0.25 MB. The network stored 1.00 MB. The 0.75 MB in between is uncompensated. It is not paid for by the writer's fee. It is not paid for by the miner's revenue. It is not priced anywhere in the consensus rules, the fee market, the wallet UI, or the block explorer. It is paid for, in storage and bandwidth and validation cost, by every full node operator who has ever run Bitcoin Core, present and future, in perpetuity."
@nprofile…dprn @nprofile…hmmc @nprofile…a6u7 @nprofile…y4hy
#bitcoin #bip110 #segwit

2026-06-20 17:30:10 UTC

- reply

Did you change your mind?

2026-06-20 17:22:18 UTC

- reply

Will simplify language over next few days. The whole idea is that block should have all bytes backed by satoshis. Right now it’s cheap to store data it should be expensive to stimulate high quality L2 solutions and reduce spam simultaneously. Miners will get higher fees if people need to include more data, nodes can favour lean transaction, L2 users would need to care about what they inscribe. Win win win.

2026-06-20 14:01:10 UTC

- reply

Always good to be thoughtful

2026-06-20 13:37:31 UTC

- reply

My thought comes from reading @npub1qae…7umv
Interestingly it’s the same idea that Dr Jack Kruse talks about.
We are trying to formulate it in detail on: https://artel21.vercel.app/mass-value-bound.html
It’s a bit rough atm but getting there

2026-06-20 11:14:06 UTC

- reply

It’s not filter war, it’s excess mass backed by no energy

2026-06-20 11:03:55 UTC

- reply

I know, agree it’s good for short term.
We’d like to propose mass-value bound as long term solution, see https://artel21.vercel.app/mass-value-bound.html

2026-06-20 10:34:07 UTC

- reply

Math can’t lie, you cant simply advocate for adding mass for free

2026-06-20 10:24:49 UTC

- reply

We are Bitcoin. It’s up to us to decide what happens next

2026-06-20 10:07:22 UTC

- reply

It’s Landauer Attach orchestrated by Core on Bitcoin. We need harder protection than BIP-110, take a look at our research

2026-06-18 08:08:03 UTC

- reply

Time!

2026-06-17 21:31:34 UTC

@npub1rxy…hnp8 @npub1cj8…rz4u @npub1guh…6hjy will appreciate you taking a look at the Bitcoin Energy research we’ve done.

2026-06-17 21:22:52 UTC

Take a look at our work on describing Bitcoin as thermodynamically sound system.
#bitcoin #nostr

2026-06-17 17:57:59 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the insight. Will have to find a way to include that

2026-06-17 17:26:20 UTC

- reply

Actually I think my definition is wrong.
I wanted to quantify how much joules were converted to satoshis.
It sounds like “permanently sunk” can be misleading. It’s more like how much joules you’ve “exchanged” for satoshis. Given that Bitcoin is thermodynamically sound and Kelvin is pegged it allows us to use it as exchange method.
I’d like compare energy equivalents of oil, bitcoin and electricity. I start by saying that the true price of Bitcoin can only be measured in joules. This is what I try to quantify - how much joules were exchanged for Bitcoin at any given block.
Chart should up into the right. It should align with Jeff Booth definition of deflation. Prices in Bitcoin go down (or at least stay the same if there’s no mining and we all use lightning) because more and more joules exchanged for Bitcoin.
I’m also sick of fiat price definitions, comparing to gold and power law as it only describes social side but not physics.
Let me know if I have any missing pieces in my thought process.