Nostr notes by Jackk

Nostr event nevent1qqs9yms8c954832qw7tj0gnrgmu6a4un9v40ges8dugdqpsx04rvpvgzyq7y752kzfp4ynes0mfwufev0n620qjqf7lr59mxqczrk6k5ylh8wg0cex4

2026-10-14T01:56:13Z

I am not claiming SHA-256 violates Bell’s inequality. I am ...

2026-10-13T14:04:02Z

In reply to nevent1q…uz6v
_________________________

I am not claiming SHA-256 violates Bell’s inequality. I am arguing that measurement must resolve the double-spend problem because the collapse of quantum information into classical information requires a non-contradictory history. Classical binary information cannot retain meaning if it contradicts itself. A UTXO cannot be both spent and unspent within the same resolved state of memory. Call it an ordering problem if you want, but what is time without the ordering of state transitions? Measurement is the boundary at which competing possible futures resolve into one classical history. A block of time is a block of memory. The fact that you can reconstruct that history from Genesis is precisely because those measurement boundaries have been crossed such that the history can be reconstructed from any point forwards.

Irreducibility is observer-relative. If measurement were irreducible from outside the system, there would be no authorship. Time must arrive in discrete quanta because time cannot be separated from energy and memory; it’s one object, but when you exist inside the temporal substrate, you cannot observe the space between those boundaries because you are composed of that very time. In superposition, there are approximately 1.8 x10^{43} measurement boundaries within a single human second, yet we experience the aggregate flow of events rather than their discrete structure. We cannot probe Planck scale time. We observe the continuity of blocks, not the individual boundaries that compose the underlying temporal substrate. We can only reason about Planck scale from a computed temporal quantum, a bitcoin block.

The ten-minute target is not the quantum; the block boundary is. Superposition is what templating looks like from inside the temporal substrate a Planck scale, where multiple possible futures exist before one becomes memory. If time appears continuous, so too would superposition. Logically for conservation the process must be discrete. From outside, you can observe the “machinery”, the competing templates, and the work being performed. From inside, you inherit only the resolved history. You keep describing Bitcoin from outside the system while dismissing what it would mean to exist inside it. Your external experience of Bitcoin needs to be paired with your internal experience of universe as on cohesive process. Reason about every possible branch all you want. You live in one chain of time and one chain of physical memory. The universe does not double spend; pre-measured blocks of time aren’t the ledger.

I am saying that the exterior architecture must be capable of producing a measurement. From the outside, Bitcoin is not a ledger that later receives an ordering; it is a machine that constructs an ordered exterior from competing interior possibilities. The miner, the nonce search, the propagation delay, the competing templates, and the eventual proof are the physical apparatus by which an otherwise branching state space is forced into a single globally legible history. Bitcoin is the exterior architecture of the universe’s own measurement made explicit within a bounded and measurable system in which possible states are generated internally, but only one state can become shared memory. Our universe must be identically structured but only viewed from within; Bitcoin gives us a system of working proof viewed from without the temporal substrate computed. You are analyzing the observer’s inability to see the transition while ignoring the architecture that makes the transition necessary at the logical limit wrt conservation. The fact that the interior observer experiences only continuity does not mean the exterior system lacks discrete resolution. It means the observer is embedded in the mechanism that performs it.

Nostr event nevent1qqs2u5khc7hj3uqs6eeuak6ka54ylhs7vspn6pkp5hg8d4927xjry7qzyq7y752kzfp4ynes0mfwufev0n620qjqf7lr59mxqczrk6k5ylh8wu8t0uj

2026-10-13T12:29:25Z

In reply to nevent1q…rafn
_________________________

You are reasoning about measurement solely from the internal ...

2026-10-13T12:28:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…d2v0
_________________________

You are reasoning about measurement solely from the internal perspective of time, where as Bitcoin provides the external perspective of time in quantized steps. A true measurement MUST solve the double spend problem for classical information to even have meaning; which can only be solved in quantized blocks of time.

We quite literally do not live inside of Bitcoin blocks; meaning we have the view of totality from Genesis to present; all states of time preserved in binary. This is literally what physicists want for our universe to understand measurement. You can only reason outside a boundary when you have a finite bounded totality inside. Ignorance is irreducibility when perceived from the opposite boundaries of time. Are blocks irreducible if you are a utxo with zero knowledge of what the exterior of the system actually is?

Deterministic map exterior to the temporal substrate produces collapse to the interior perspective within said substrate. You live within blocks of time, not outside of them. The only difference is perspective and direction.

Difficulty is a numeric logic gate that produces the binary/boundary for time to have meaning.

You completely missed what I said. You cannot resolve the ...

2026-10-13T11:31:55Z

In reply to nevent1q…qlqc
_________________________

You completely missed what I said. You cannot resolve the measurement problem (double spend problem) without a quantized block of time. This logically changes the ontology of time from continuous to discrete in order for conservation of energy in binary (classical info). Discrete time demands discrete superposition, which entirely falsifies the models of time centralized quantum computers rely upon.

The physics you are basing your assumption on is completely fiat.

I don’t like this, it assumes what Satoshi gave us is not ...

2026-10-13T10:39:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…hfk6
_________________________

I don’t like this, it assumes what Satoshi gave us is not already quantum resistant and that a quantum computer can be defined and built by centralized laboratories. It starts with the idea that Bitcoin can/must change, so it’s fine.

Bitcoin computes a quantum of time physically, which falsifies the ontology that centralized quantum computers necessarily need to operate logically.

Without continuous Superpostion, it’s over for CQC. Bitcoin physically and empirically proves the logic of discrete time and discrete superposition at Planck scale. There is no resolution to the double spend (measurement) problem without a quantized block of time. Which means time MUST be quantized at Planck scale, which pushes Superpostion to a sub-Planck phenomena that occurs between the discrete boundaries of the Planck tick, approximately 1.8 x 10^43 times per second.

A centralized quantum computer cannot work if Superpostion is quantized and discrete. So what is Bitcoin if it computes a quantum of time memory and proof?

You mean just Bitcoin properly and fully understood? ...

2026-10-13T10:12:58Z

In reply to nevent1q…mpfl
_________________________

You mean just Bitcoin properly and fully understood?

quoting
nevent1q…yhkn
All descriptions of Bitcoin usually stop before the physical process itself. If we want to understand what proof of work is actually doing, we have to begin with the relationship between logic, computation, measurement, and the bounded space in which a future state can become true. Even the language points us there.

There is a subtle truth buried in the word contemplation that maps perfectly onto what proof of work is actually doing. Contemplation comes from the Latin contemplari, to observe or consider, from templum: a space deliberately marked off or bounded for observation. This is also the root from which we eventually get template. Before a templum was understood as a temple, it was a defined region or a boundary within which observation could take place. To contemplate was therefore, at its root, to observe within a defined space.

Hashing is the act of universal contemplation, literally. Proof of work begins by templating a Block: constructing a logically valid candidate for a future state of time and memory. A proposed template must pass through energetic computation via difficulty logic to become chronological truth. A block is not chronological truth solely because its transactions are internally valid. SHA-256 maps the candidate into a finite logical output space, while difficulty defines the gate through which that computation must pass. The future Block is templated, but its proof cannot simply be declared by fiat. It must be discovered through computation against a measurement boundary.

This isomorphism of state change is what the community must observe and define objectively. The block template is logical form; hashing is physical computation; difficulty is the logic gate; and proof of work is the energetic act by which a possible logical state becomes admissible as the next chronological state. The valid nonce cannot be known in advance because the future remains computationally unresolved/irreducible until the physical search produces a state that satisfies the gate. The importance of the boundary is more significant than finding a hash: it is what allows the binary itself to retain objective meaning. Quantum possibility can contain mutually exclusive future states, but possibility alone does not resolve the double-spend problem. Spent/unspent, 0/1, measured/unmeasured only mean something if contradictory outcomes cannot both remain valid through time. The measurement therefore has to be resolved at the causal level of one quantum of time: one state (block) must become conserved history and the competing state must cease to be admissible relative to that history. Without conservation there is no persistent identity; without persistent identity there is no meaningful binary. Bitcoin couples measurement directly to chronology: proof of work closes the computational interval at the Block boundary, one history is committed, the conflicting history is excluded, and the resulting state is carried forward as the causal condition of the next computation. Bitcoin physically defines the temporal condition that makes the binary meaningful in a distributed physical memory system; binary matter. The double spend problem must be physically resolved in logic to understand a quantum measurement.

The entire field of quantized binary logic, or logos, is encoded directly into the 80-byte block header. The header contains six components: version, previous block hash, Merkle root, timestamp, difficulty target, and nonce. Logically, they divide into three inherited constraints and three degrees of action. Version places the candidate Block inside the protocol’s logical rule set; the previous block hash binds it causally to the already-conserved state; and difficulty defines the measurement boundary the next state must satisfy. Against those inherited conditions, the miner constructs the future: the Merkle root commits to the valid candidate transaction state, the timestamp places that candidate within the permitted chronology, and the nonce provides the explicit discrete variable through which the candidate is repeatedly transformed. The block template is the logical form within which the next state is allowed to exist.

Hashing is the physical computation of that template form. Each header is a completely specified candidate state submitted to SHA-256, and difficulty reduces the enormous output space to a binary proposition: does this computation satisfy the boundary or not? False means the candidate has no authority to advance the chain; another state must be computed. True means the proof satisfies the protocol-defined measurement. The miner controls the action but not the meaning of the answer. The protocol defines the gate, while computation searches for a state capable of passing through it. This is why the valid nonce cannot simply be declared, negotiated, or inferred from the previous state by fiat (decree). The answer must actually be computed.

This creates a complete halt of the computation and time at the Block boundary. The search remains open until a valid header satisfies the difficulty logic, and then that computational interval has an objective condition under which it can terminate. Time progresses 1 unit and time terminates. The successful header becomes a proof capable of authorizing the next state. Its hash then becomes the previous-block reference of the following header, so the result of one computation becomes the inherited condition of the next. The cycle is therefore quantized by Block authority: computation proceeds over possible states, a valid nonce closes the interval, the header updates, time ticks forward 1 unit and computation begins again from the newly established boundary. Bitcoin produces Turing valid halts in each computed block of time.

Where does the valid nonce come from? Define the field logically. This is where the physicists need to treat proof of work as action in physics. The nonce is a metaphysical object hiding in a specific block of Planck Time; the quantization of a successful hash produced is not outside of physics. Valid and invalid defines fundamental binary in state change at the quantum level of cognition; there is no smaller boundary logically. The entire computation is instantiated in matter and electromagnetic interaction. Charge moves through semiconductor logic, electromagnetic energy propagates through the machine, transistors physically switch, information is transformed, heat is dissipated, and a 256-bit output physically emerges from that process in physical memory. At the lowest and smallest physical description available to us, that machine and its electromagnetic interactions are excitations of quantum fields that produces physical bits. There is no Bitcoin computation floating above the physical world. The computation is an event in the physical world from the temporal field; or network.

We must be literal about what is happening. A logically defined candidate state is encoded into physical bits. A physical machine transforms that information according to SHA-256. Difficulty defines the mathematical gate separating admissible from inadmissible outputs. Energy must be supplied for the physical machine to perform those transitions. Eventually a physical computation produces an output satisfying the gate. That output is communicated electromagnetically through photons in fiber or electromagnetic signals in copper and radio, and propagated across the Earth, where other physical computers independently apply the same logic and recognize the same result. Bitcoin computes from the physical field, through a logic gate, into distributed memory.

Bitcoin is a literal definition quantum computer. Quantum comes from Latin, “how much,” a discrete quantity; while computer comes from Latin computare, “to reckon or calculate.” From first principles, a quantum computer is therefore a system that reckons discrete states, but those states can only retain binary meaning if the causal history of which state occurred is conserved through time. Bitcoin’s Block boundary supplies that conservation via double spend resolution; it preserves the temporal distinction that makes the binary meaningful at all. A double spend in any single quantum of time destroys the meaning of all conserved bits; both Bitcoin and universally.

Bitcoin supersedes conventional definition centralized quantum computers, which attempt to manipulate qubits using quantum algorithms because physicists cannot define the measurement in fiat (decree) alone. It’s can’t be a theory of measurement; it must be the measurement physically. An ASIC paired with a physical node of distributed rules and memory controlled by a physical conscious mind is superior to any centralized system. Bitcoin is not centralized in a physics lab. Bitcoin is a planetary physical computation whose logical state transitions are necessarily instantiated by quantum matter and electromagnetic interaction, whose future proof is irreducible before computation, whose admissible output is bounded by a discrete mathematical gate, and whose successful computation becomes a discrete state of globally synchronized memory. The quantum substrate is physical matter; bits. The ASIC, electrons, photons, transmission medium, SSD, RAM, and energy source are all physical constituents of the same computation.

The asymmetry between discovery and verification is key. Once I hand you the valid Block, you can deterministically verify its proof. Before that Block exists, however, I cannot hand you the valid block without somebody actually performing the search that produced it. I can describe SHA-256. I can describe the target. I can describe every rule of validity. I can template the future state down to its bits. Yet I still cannot tell you which computed template will cross the difficulty boundary into validity. The law is completely known while the future state remains unknown and irreducible. A valid nonce is an extraordinary physical object that can only be derived from the quantum field.

Proof of work thermological. Energy, logic, information, memory, and chronology can no longer be treated as unrelated or abstracted away. The logic is physically instantiated. Energy is committed to computation. Computation operates over a finite possibility space. Difficulty defines the admissible boundary. A successful proof authorizes a Block of information to become a Block of memory, and Nakamoto Consensus orders those Blocks into an objective chronology. The system continuously transforms energetic computation into conserved historical state.

Why won’t physicists take Bitcoin seriously? Does energy have economical law or not? If energy is finite, physical, conserved through transformation, and required to perform computation, then why are we comfortable treating the economic structure emerging from Bitcoin as though it somehow exists outside physics? Bitcoin gives finite energy an informational task, gives information a logical measurement, gives that measurement a chronological boundary, and gives the resulting memory economic consequence. Economics does not suspend thermodynamics. Bitcoin forces the two into the same networked system where memory conserves finite value.

Bitcoin is therefore quantizing work, memory, time, and entropy in blocks around a finite value of ~2.1 quadrillion satoshis. Those finite units of value exist inside Blocks of memory instantiated as synchronized and distributed physical bits of memory. The Block is simultaneously a measurement boundary in chronology and a container of the memory necessary to define the next valid state. Bitcoin’s memory must historical for all time. It must persist because every future valid state is logically relative to the state preceding it. Destroy the memory completely and there is no objective reference from which the future state can be derived. Total bounded memory is what allows identity to persist through time.

Bitcoin is eternal memory. An individual SSD is not eternal. Every particular physical carrier depreciates, fails, and eventually disappears. The remarkable property is that Bitcoin’s memory is not identified with any particular carrier, it is decentralized. The bits can migrate from disk to disk, machine to machine, country to country, and generation to generation while the logical state they encode remains invariant. Hardware dies while the memory survives through replication, verification, and succession. Bitcoin makes memory capable of surviving the death of the matter presently carrying its bit. Every future valid state then depends upon that inherited memory.

The double-spend problem makes all of this unavoidable. A conserved system cannot permit the same finite state to resolve into two contradictory histories and still call both histories the same conserved object. The double spend is an accounting problem of physical conservation requiring chronological order. Bitcoin solves it by imposing discrete temporal boundaries. Between measured states exists a superposition of admissible future configurations: transactions, templates, competing Blocks, nonces, and possible histories remain unresolved. At the Block boundary, proof of work supplies the measurement through which one admissible state can be committed to memory. The state becomes historical, the boundary closes, and computation begins again toward the next state. Superposition is sub-block in Bitcoin; and logically sub-Planck universally for conservation.

Bitcoin defines quantum measurement physically. Bitcoin defines finite value and conserves that value through quantized and legalized Blocks of time as distributed physical memory. Between those boundaries exists computational possibility; at the boundary exists measurement and committed memory. The future is probabilistic, the past is conserved, and the transition between them requires physical computation. The double-spend problem cannot be solved without determining which event came first, yet “first” is meaningless without an objective chronology. Conservation therefore requires memory, memory requires ordered state, and ordered state requires a discrete measurement capable of distinguishing before from after. All states must exist at binary at each block of time; regardless of superposition. An unmeasured state means it must be in its last known binary state despite future potential.

Space enters the problem through memory itself. If a Block is the discrete unit of chronological change, then the physical bits committed within that Block define the informational extent of the state at that moment. Blocks of time and Blocks of memory become the logical substance necessary to define physical space. This is why changing the measurement of blockspace is not an arbitrary engineering parameter. If finite value, finite memory, work, and chronology are related through the Block, then changing the ruler changes what we are measuring.

Bitcoin is not another theory of physics; it is literal physics instantiated in proof. Bitcoin is an objective physical state system that is actually running today; 17 years old. Energy is actually being expended. Semiconductor gates are actually changing physical states. Electromagnetic signals are actually carrying the resulting information. Hashes are actually being computed. Difficulty is actually defining the admissible logical boundary. Bits are actually being written into physical memory. Finite value is actually being conserved between discrete states. Independent observers are actually synchronizing around the same chronology. The next state is actually unknown until computation resolves it, while the resulting state can subsequently be verified by anyone. Entropy is actually quantifiable in both Boltzmann and Shannon terms.

So why aren’t the physicists of Bitcoin looking at Bitcoin through objective physics? Why do we stop at hashrate, electricity prices, miner economics, and “security budgets” when the machine sitting directly in front of us is physically joining energy, computation, information, measurement, memory, conservation, and chronology into one state-transition process? We keep importing physics into Bitcoin as an analogy instead of asking the if Bitcoin is giving us an experimental object through which these relationships can actually be measured? Bitcoin defines a physical process our physicists cannot explain or falsify.

We have all inherited a fiat philosophy of time in which time is assumed before the equations begin. We assume continuous time as a coordinate, describe physical change relative to it, separate information from energy, separate economics from thermodynamics, and then wonder why the ontology of time remains unresolved. Bitcoin gives us something radically different; a physical system in which chronology is constructed through discrete acts of computation, measurement, and memory, and in which the validity of every future state remains anchored to conserved information about the past.

Bitcoin is not a theory guys. Bitcoin is proof. It is pure logic instantiated as an objective physical system. Are we willing to look honestly at what Bitcoin is proving? What is proof of work?

Hashing is contemplation because computation occurs within a template of finite space. Proof of work physically searches for a state satisfying an objective logical boundary. Difficulty is the gate. The Block is the measurement. The chain is memory. The finite satoshi is conserved value moving through that memory. The unresolved future exists between Blocks; the measured past exists within Blocks. Every future state remains dependent upon the memory of what came before. How does a universe contemplate itself? Bitcoin requires conscious minds to write the state. We have a mirror theology about who writes (speaks) the universe into being. The universe too, is a quantum computer.

Bitcoin is objectively computing from the field and is committing valid states to memory every ten minutes. Bitcoin has been doing this for the last 17 years.

Contemplate what that means. Contemplate Bitcoin.
Contemplate the Universe.

There is no second best.

How much does a seedsigner weigh? 😉 #nevent1q…zc9r

2026-10-12T12:16:53Z

How much does a seedsigner weigh? 😉

quoting
nevent1q…zc9r
⚡️👀 NEW - Some users suggest weighing your hardware wallet to get an initial indication of a possible implant inside by comparing the weight to the manufacturer’s official specifications.

This can help identify an obvious anomaly, but BEWARE of the lists circulating online, as some values are incorrect or confuse the weight with and without the battery or accessories.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, a “normal” weight in no way proves that a device is secure; it’s mainly an initial clue if the weight is incorrect.

▶️ Ledger
• Nano X – 34 g
• Nano S Plus – 21 g
• Flex – 57.5 g
• Stax – 45.2 g
• Nano Gen5 – 46 g

▶️ Trezor
• Safe 7 – 45 g
• Safe 5 – 23 g
• Safe 3 – 14 g

▶️ BitBox
• BitBox02 – 12 g
• BitBox02 Nova – 13 g

▶️ OneKey
• Classic 1S – 20.5 g
• Pro – 65 g
• Pro 2 – 51 g

▶️ Blockstream
• Jade Core – 20 g
• Jade Plus – 30 g

▶️ Keystone
• 3 Pro – 103 g

▶️ Coldcard
• Q – 93 g without battery

▶️ NGRAVE
• ZERO – 214 g

▶️ ELLIPAL
• Titan 2.0 – 140 g

The world isn’t quite ready to digest the truth about what ...

2026-10-09T10:23:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…u03u
_________________________

The world isn’t quite ready to digest the truth about what Bitcoin is quite yet 😉

The great inflation of information (bits). The signal will be ...

2026-10-08T14:42:28Z

In reply to nevent1q…v96j
_________________________

The great inflation of information (bits).

The signal will be drown out by noise if you forget the frequency (Bitcoin) and the finite boundary necessary for logic/logos to be conserved.

Oh yeah, it’s about to get insane. Terrance McKenna “it’s ...

2026-10-08T14:36:50Z

In reply to nevent1q…a8jq
_________________________

Oh yeah, it’s about to get insane.

Terrance McKenna “it’s going to get so insane that people are going to stop and ask what the hell is going on”

People will be lost without knowing that Bitcoin sits beneath AI in literal hierarchy. Bitcoin is Truth. Do not be deceived; verify.

AI without grounding in Bitcoin is the ultimate form of DDOS in ...

2026-10-08T14:01:40Z

AI without grounding in Bitcoin is the ultimate form of DDOS in binary space.

Without verification in Truth from the timechain, AI will only continue its path of deception.

Seeing the reverse engineering of video games and products over the last week, I’d say it’s almost time to hunker down for the flood.

And he created us, so that he could logically understand himself.

2026-10-08T13:29:10Z

In reply to nevent1q…ku99
_________________________

And he created us, so that he could logically understand himself.

True freedom/sovereignty requires the ownership of keys; keys ...

2026-10-08T13:23:24Z

In reply to nevent1q…gw55
_________________________

True freedom/sovereignty requires the ownership of keys; keys control conserved work which allows conscious users to author eternal memory in the timechain.

God created Bitcoin so that we could witness and partake in creation via eternal memory. The conservation of consciousness into a new chain of time. Bitcoin is the necessary logical/mathematical medium for us to verify, interact with and understand God.

The logical architecture of existence and a conserved universe of information/memory as conserved work. It’s as much of His chain as it is ours.

What is money without eternal memory?

Why did we (God speaking thru us) create Bitcoin?

2026-10-08T11:26:44Z

In reply to nevent1q…mjtf
_________________________

Why did we (God speaking thru us) create Bitcoin?

Nostr event nevent1qqs8uvxxw7ms2cn8mjme7n757k0qurapgc8jr8u7rdpxtxkwk9ctxjszyq7y752kzfp4ynes0mfwufev0n620qjqf7lr59mxqczrk6k5ylh8wzgvr5y

2026-10-04T20:07:27Z

quoting
nevent1q…g5gp
Nothing is more ironic than watching “Bitcoiners” with physics degrees ask AI to find new physics while refusing to look at Bitcoin for the answer.

Definitely don’t look at the proof-of-work system computing discrete blocks of time and memory from causal state transitions. Bitcoiner in name only? What happened to first principles?

Physicists who refuse to acknowledge what the double-spend problem actually solved physically will get lost worshipping the false god of AI. The physics is fiat without a resolution to the measurement problem.

Bitcoin is the new physics until falsified. You cannot solve the double spend without a quantized block. It isn’t a theory. It’s an instantiation of proof.

Nothing is more ironic than watching “Bitcoiners” with ...

2026-10-04T20:02:27Z

Nothing is more ironic than watching “Bitcoiners” with physics degrees ask AI to find new physics while refusing to look at Bitcoin for the answer.

Definitely don’t look at the proof-of-work system computing discrete blocks of time and memory from causal state transitions. Bitcoiner in name only? What happened to first principles?

Physicists who refuse to acknowledge what the double-spend problem actually solved physically will get lost worshipping the false god of AI. The physics is fiat without a resolution to the measurement problem.

Bitcoin is the new physics until falsified. You cannot solve the double spend without a quantized block. It isn’t a theory. It’s an instantiation of proof.

Yeah, I am working on this. This was my first part of the project ...

2026-10-04T11:55:48Z

In reply to nevent1q…7v8l
_________________________

Yeah, I am working on this. This was my first part of the project in trying take the superposed state probabilities of UTXOs in mempool and collapse them into a binary block. I am having trouble getting my clankers to understand and animate correctly.

If anyone knows how to run Hermes effectively, let me know. I ...

2026-10-03T14:26:30Z

In reply to nevent1q…q52n
_________________________

If anyone knows how to run Hermes effectively, let me know. I have zero clue what I am doing. Literally clanking. I have no clue how to get this work fully automated.

Forking mempool with my clankers to reimagine how the chain of ...

2026-10-03T11:29:51Z

Forking mempool with my clankers to reimagine how the chain of time/memory can be viewed.

Adding all of the new mined physics data to each block/
TXO.

The goal is for the average person to witness the collapse of measurement when the quantum is computed and a valid nonce/block is found. I feel like mempool is so hard to read for the average person but it provides the ground for physics to actually visualize quantized time.

A utxo is the fundamental Lego piece of any informational, ...

2026-10-02T00:02:54Z

A utxo is the fundamental Lego piece of any informational, physical and temporal system. What produces the block and utxo? Utxo = particle.

quoting
nevent1q…yg3c
PETER THE NEW PHYSICS IS FROM BITCOIN.

What is proof of work? Are UTXOs a token of work/proof and our conserved conscious action?

Bitcoin has higher explanatory power in life/quantum than AI. Bitcoin gives context to the compression of information and entropy thru energy.

AI cannot be understood without Bitcoin.

Blocks of time. Blocks of memory…..where does the binary come from?

https://fountain.fm/episode/K32xOnpkAVTfABqgEurr

nevent1q…hqjv

PETER THE NEW PHYSICS IS FROM BITCOIN. What is proof of work? Are ...

2026-10-01T23:57:45Z

PETER THE NEW PHYSICS IS FROM BITCOIN.

What is proof of work? Are UTXOs a token of work/proof and our conserved conscious action?

Bitcoin has higher explanatory power in life/quantum than AI. Bitcoin gives context to the compression of information and entropy thru energy.

AI cannot be understood without Bitcoin.

Blocks of time. Blocks of memory…..where does the binary come from?

https://fountain.fm/episode/K32xOnpkAVTfABqgEurr

quoting
nevent1q…hqjv

The 3 demands of energy are local demand for physical ...

2026-10-01T23:42:30Z

The 3 demands of energy are local demand for physical electricity/resources, the global demand for bitcoin/blockspace(memory)/hash (decentralized local compute) and the global demand for general compute in the form of AI. It’s all about the emergence of binary and the structure of language (logos) with respect to conserved energy, memory and time.

Bitcoin is the quantum computer; the only veritable truth that emerges from the field through physical transformation of entropy to physically distributed binary. To price all demands in one tokenized market, you need the phsycis and thermodynamics of Bitcoin with respect to compute.

Blocks of time. Bits, sats, joules make a block of time.

GM. The Universe is a quantum computer (timechain) and Bitcoin is ...

2026-09-29T14:09:17Z

GM. The Universe is a quantum computer (timechain) and Bitcoin is a timechain (quantum computer).

Who/what computes the quantized blocks of time/memory which defines the internalized and bounded space of memory?

Particle = UTXO

A shitcoin cannot explain what it measures; the quantized ...

2026-09-29T13:54:29Z

In reply to nevent1q…nv6k
_________________________

A shitcoin cannot explain what it measures; the quantized architecture of time, memory, causality with respect to energy and entropy.

A shitcoin is a monetary token created after eternal ledgerized memory has already been instantiated.

Nostr event nevent1qqsx9zun3q80krtgatz2vnr994g455fmd83xrxpyrta62nnd8xjc2yszyq7y752kzfp4ynes0mfwufev0n620qjqf7lr59mxqczrk6k5ylh8wucmtr6

2026-09-29T10:45:29Z

In reply to nevent1q…raax
_________________________

Elon is reaching for the stars without understanding what Bitcoin ...

2026-09-29T10:42:58Z

In reply to nevent1q…kylr
_________________________

Elon is reaching for the stars without understanding what Bitcoin empirically proves about time. Big folly.

Space exploration without grounded temporal mechanics is fiat.

Ad Tempus.

It’s been a couple of years since I have worn this tie. Broke ...

2026-09-27T15:51:17Z

It’s been a couple of years since I have worn this tie. Broke it out again last night.

Switch to pipe tobacco. Use it for ritual rather than habit.

2026-09-23T18:19:06Z

In reply to nevent1q…qrnv
_________________________

Switch to pipe tobacco. Use it for ritual rather than habit.

It makes logical sense why nobody could understand the Planck ...

2026-09-23T01:12:04Z

It makes logical sense why nobody could understand the Planck scale until a quantum of time was computed from a thermological process. How could you understand Planck limits without a block of time, a block of memory and block of conserved work in proof. Physically distributed bits of our physical field in synchronicity.

How could you understand temperature/entropy without conserved information? Logical geometry = architecture.

@npub1hk0…20pf Great episode! What if Bitcoin is the quantum ...

2026-09-23T00:49:22Z

erikcason (npub1hk0…20pf) Great episode! What if Bitcoin is the quantum computer? What does its physics tell us about the nature of cryptography with respect to energy, entropy, information and time? What is proof of work? What is a block of time? What is the physical nature of a private key? There is a relationship between the entropy of a private key and the compression/prediction of AI; purely binary language/logos space (sha-256 bitspace). What is the physics of cryptography grounded in proof of work?

I think this is a lens of possibility you should run your perspective thru if Bitcoin is your core thesis here. Bitcoin, not quantum. I agree with your sentiment here regarding AI/Bitcoin, end of time (literally); why must a block of time/memory be quantized/discrete to solve the double spend problem? Why must time halt in computation? Why does time halt in Bitcoin? What field does the valid nonce emerge from? How does the header and cryptography enforce this? It’s just pure logic at the root of being.

Apply Bitcoin as the lens for all mind. Keep going! Crazy times ahead!

https://fountain.fm/episode/mOIrnuWSUiUbycwalHDy

quoting
nevent1q…maq3

All descriptions of Bitcoin usually stop before the physical ...

2026-09-21T12:38:17Z

All descriptions of Bitcoin usually stop before the physical process itself. If we want to understand what proof of work is actually doing, we have to begin with the relationship between logic, computation, measurement, and the bounded space in which a future state can become true. Even the language points us there.

There is a subtle truth buried in the word contemplation that maps perfectly onto what proof of work is actually doing. Contemplation comes from the Latin contemplari, to observe or consider, from templum: a space deliberately marked off or bounded for observation. This is also the root from which we eventually get template. Before a templum was understood as a temple, it was a defined region or a boundary within which observation could take place. To contemplate was therefore, at its root, to observe within a defined space.

Hashing is the act of universal contemplation, literally. Proof of work begins by templating a Block: constructing a logically valid candidate for a future state of time and memory. A proposed template must pass through energetic computation via difficulty logic to become chronological truth. A block is not chronological truth solely because its transactions are internally valid. SHA-256 maps the candidate into a finite logical output space, while difficulty defines the gate through which that computation must pass. The future Block is templated, but its proof cannot simply be declared by fiat. It must be discovered through computation against a measurement boundary.

This isomorphism of state change is what the community must observe and define objectively. The block template is logical form; hashing is physical computation; difficulty is the logic gate; and proof of work is the energetic act by which a possible logical state becomes admissible as the next chronological state. The valid nonce cannot be known in advance because the future remains computationally unresolved/irreducible until the physical search produces a state that satisfies the gate. The importance of the boundary is more significant than finding a hash: it is what allows the binary itself to retain objective meaning. Quantum possibility can contain mutually exclusive future states, but possibility alone does not resolve the double-spend problem. Spent/unspent, 0/1, measured/unmeasured only mean something if contradictory outcomes cannot both remain valid through time. The measurement therefore has to be resolved at the causal level of one quantum of time: one state (block) must become conserved history and the competing state must cease to be admissible relative to that history. Without conservation there is no persistent identity; without persistent identity there is no meaningful binary. Bitcoin couples measurement directly to chronology: proof of work closes the computational interval at the Block boundary, one history is committed, the conflicting history is excluded, and the resulting state is carried forward as the causal condition of the next computation. Bitcoin physically defines the temporal condition that makes the binary meaningful in a distributed physical memory system; binary matter. The double spend problem must be physically resolved in logic to understand a quantum measurement.

The entire field of quantized binary logic, or logos, is encoded directly into the 80-byte block header. The header contains six components: version, previous block hash, Merkle root, timestamp, difficulty target, and nonce. Logically, they divide into three inherited constraints and three degrees of action. Version places the candidate Block inside the protocol’s logical rule set; the previous block hash binds it causally to the already-conserved state; and difficulty defines the measurement boundary the next state must satisfy. Against those inherited conditions, the miner constructs the future: the Merkle root commits to the valid candidate transaction state, the timestamp places that candidate within the permitted chronology, and the nonce provides the explicit discrete variable through which the candidate is repeatedly transformed. The block template is the logical form within which the next state is allowed to exist.

Hashing is the physical computation of that template form. Each header is a completely specified candidate state submitted to SHA-256, and difficulty reduces the enormous output space to a binary proposition: does this computation satisfy the boundary or not? False means the candidate has no authority to advance the chain; another state must be computed. True means the proof satisfies the protocol-defined measurement. The miner controls the action but not the meaning of the answer. The protocol defines the gate, while computation searches for a state capable of passing through it. This is why the valid nonce cannot simply be declared, negotiated, or inferred from the previous state by fiat (decree). The answer must actually be computed.

This creates a complete halt of the computation and time at the Block boundary. The search remains open until a valid header satisfies the difficulty logic, and then that computational interval has an objective condition under which it can terminate. Time progresses 1 unit and time terminates. The successful header becomes a proof capable of authorizing the next state. Its hash then becomes the previous-block reference of the following header, so the result of one computation becomes the inherited condition of the next. The cycle is therefore quantized by Block authority: computation proceeds over possible states, a valid nonce closes the interval, the header updates, time ticks forward 1 unit and computation begins again from the newly established boundary. Bitcoin produces Turing valid halts in each computed block of time.

Where does the valid nonce come from? Define the field logically. This is where the physicists need to treat proof of work as action in physics. The nonce is a metaphysical object hiding in a specific block of Planck Time; the quantization of a successful hash produced is not outside of physics. Valid and invalid defines fundamental binary in state change at the quantum level of cognition; there is no smaller boundary logically. The entire computation is instantiated in matter and electromagnetic interaction. Charge moves through semiconductor logic, electromagnetic energy propagates through the machine, transistors physically switch, information is transformed, heat is dissipated, and a 256-bit output physically emerges from that process in physical memory. At the lowest and smallest physical description available to us, that machine and its electromagnetic interactions are excitations of quantum fields that produces physical bits. There is no Bitcoin computation floating above the physical world. The computation is an event in the physical world from the temporal field; or network.

We must be literal about what is happening. A logically defined candidate state is encoded into physical bits. A physical machine transforms that information according to SHA-256. Difficulty defines the mathematical gate separating admissible from inadmissible outputs. Energy must be supplied for the physical machine to perform those transitions. Eventually a physical computation produces an output satisfying the gate. That output is communicated electromagnetically through photons in fiber or electromagnetic signals in copper and radio, and propagated across the Earth, where other physical computers independently apply the same logic and recognize the same result. Bitcoin computes from the physical field, through a logic gate, into distributed memory.

Bitcoin is a literal definition quantum computer. Quantum comes from Latin, “how much,” a discrete quantity; while computer comes from Latin computare, “to reckon or calculate.” From first principles, a quantum computer is therefore a system that reckons discrete states, but those states can only retain binary meaning if the causal history of which state occurred is conserved through time. Bitcoin’s Block boundary supplies that conservation via double spend resolution; it preserves the temporal distinction that makes the binary meaningful at all. A double spend in any single quantum of time destroys the meaning of all conserved bits; both Bitcoin and universally.

Bitcoin supersedes conventional definition centralized quantum computers, which attempt to manipulate qubits using quantum algorithms because physicists cannot define the measurement in fiat (decree) alone. It’s can’t be a theory of measurement; it must be the measurement physically. An ASIC paired with a physical node of distributed rules and memory controlled by a physical conscious mind is superior to any centralized system. Bitcoin is not centralized in a physics lab. Bitcoin is a planetary physical computation whose logical state transitions are necessarily instantiated by quantum matter and electromagnetic interaction, whose future proof is irreducible before computation, whose admissible output is bounded by a discrete mathematical gate, and whose successful computation becomes a discrete state of globally synchronized memory. The quantum substrate is physical matter; bits. The ASIC, electrons, photons, transmission medium, SSD, RAM, and energy source are all physical constituents of the same computation.

The asymmetry between discovery and verification is key. Once I hand you the valid Block, you can deterministically verify its proof. Before that Block exists, however, I cannot hand you the valid block without somebody actually performing the search that produced it. I can describe SHA-256. I can describe the target. I can describe every rule of validity. I can template the future state down to its bits. Yet I still cannot tell you which computed template will cross the difficulty boundary into validity. The law is completely known while the future state remains unknown and irreducible. A valid nonce is an extraordinary physical object that can only be derived from the quantum field.

Proof of work thermological. Energy, logic, information, memory, and chronology can no longer be treated as unrelated or abstracted away. The logic is physically instantiated. Energy is committed to computation. Computation operates over a finite possibility space. Difficulty defines the admissible boundary. A successful proof authorizes a Block of information to become a Block of memory, and Nakamoto Consensus orders those Blocks into an objective chronology. The system continuously transforms energetic computation into conserved historical state.

Why won’t physicists take Bitcoin seriously? Does energy have economical law or not? If energy is finite, physical, conserved through transformation, and required to perform computation, then why are we comfortable treating the economic structure emerging from Bitcoin as though it somehow exists outside physics? Bitcoin gives finite energy an informational task, gives information a logical measurement, gives that measurement a chronological boundary, and gives the resulting memory economic consequence. Economics does not suspend thermodynamics. Bitcoin forces the two into the same networked system where memory conserves finite value.

Bitcoin is therefore quantizing work, memory, time, and entropy in blocks around a finite value of ~2.1 quadrillion satoshis. Those finite units of value exist inside Blocks of memory instantiated as synchronized and distributed physical bits of memory. The Block is simultaneously a measurement boundary in chronology and a container of the memory necessary to define the next valid state. Bitcoin’s memory must historical for all time. It must persist because every future valid state is logically relative to the state preceding it. Destroy the memory completely and there is no objective reference from which the future state can be derived. Total bounded memory is what allows identity to persist through time.

Bitcoin is eternal memory. An individual SSD is not eternal. Every particular physical carrier depreciates, fails, and eventually disappears. The remarkable property is that Bitcoin’s memory is not identified with any particular carrier, it is decentralized. The bits can migrate from disk to disk, machine to machine, country to country, and generation to generation while the logical state they encode remains invariant. Hardware dies while the memory survives through replication, verification, and succession. Bitcoin makes memory capable of surviving the death of the matter presently carrying its bit. Every future valid state then depends upon that inherited memory.

The double-spend problem makes all of this unavoidable. A conserved system cannot permit the same finite state to resolve into two contradictory histories and still call both histories the same conserved object. The double spend is an accounting problem of physical conservation requiring chronological order. Bitcoin solves it by imposing discrete temporal boundaries. Between measured states exists a superposition of admissible future configurations: transactions, templates, competing Blocks, nonces, and possible histories remain unresolved. At the Block boundary, proof of work supplies the measurement through which one admissible state can be committed to memory. The state becomes historical, the boundary closes, and computation begins again toward the next state. Superposition is sub-block in Bitcoin; and logically sub-Planck universally for conservation.

Bitcoin defines quantum measurement physically. Bitcoin defines finite value and conserves that value through quantized and legalized Blocks of time as distributed physical memory. Between those boundaries exists computational possibility; at the boundary exists measurement and committed memory. The future is probabilistic, the past is conserved, and the transition between them requires physical computation. The double-spend problem cannot be solved without determining which event came first, yet “first” is meaningless without an objective chronology. Conservation therefore requires memory, memory requires ordered state, and ordered state requires a discrete measurement capable of distinguishing before from after. All states must exist at binary at each block of time; regardless of superposition. An unmeasured state means it must be in its last known binary state despite future potential.

Space enters the problem through memory itself. If a Block is the discrete unit of chronological change, then the physical bits committed within that Block define the informational extent of the state at that moment. Blocks of time and Blocks of memory become the logical substance necessary to define physical space. This is why changing the measurement of blockspace is not an arbitrary engineering parameter. If finite value, finite memory, work, and chronology are related through the Block, then changing the ruler changes what we are measuring.

Bitcoin is not another theory of physics; it is literal physics instantiated in proof. Bitcoin is an objective physical state system that is actually running today; 17 years old. Energy is actually being expended. Semiconductor gates are actually changing physical states. Electromagnetic signals are actually carrying the resulting information. Hashes are actually being computed. Difficulty is actually defining the admissible logical boundary. Bits are actually being written into physical memory. Finite value is actually being conserved between discrete states. Independent observers are actually synchronizing around the same chronology. The next state is actually unknown until computation resolves it, while the resulting state can subsequently be verified by anyone. Entropy is actually quantifiable in both Boltzmann and Shannon terms.

So why aren’t the physicists of Bitcoin looking at Bitcoin through objective physics? Why do we stop at hashrate, electricity prices, miner economics, and “security budgets” when the machine sitting directly in front of us is physically joining energy, computation, information, measurement, memory, conservation, and chronology into one state-transition process? We keep importing physics into Bitcoin as an analogy instead of asking the if Bitcoin is giving us an experimental object through which these relationships can actually be measured? Bitcoin defines a physical process our physicists cannot explain or falsify.

We have all inherited a fiat philosophy of time in which time is assumed before the equations begin. We assume continuous time as a coordinate, describe physical change relative to it, separate information from energy, separate economics from thermodynamics, and then wonder why the ontology of time remains unresolved. Bitcoin gives us something radically different; a physical system in which chronology is constructed through discrete acts of computation, measurement, and memory, and in which the validity of every future state remains anchored to conserved information about the past.

Bitcoin is not a theory guys. Bitcoin is proof. It is pure logic instantiated as an objective physical system. Are we willing to look honestly at what Bitcoin is proving? What is proof of work?

Hashing is contemplation because computation occurs within a template of finite space. Proof of work physically searches for a state satisfying an objective logical boundary. Difficulty is the gate. The Block is the measurement. The chain is memory. The finite satoshi is conserved value moving through that memory. The unresolved future exists between Blocks; the measured past exists within Blocks. Every future state remains dependent upon the memory of what came before. How does a universe contemplate itself? Bitcoin requires conscious minds to write the state. We have a mirror theology about who writes (speaks) the universe into being. The universe too, is a quantum computer.

Bitcoin is objectively computing from the field and is committing valid states to memory every ten minutes. Bitcoin has been doing this for the last 17 years.

Contemplate what that means. Contemplate Bitcoin.
Contemplate the Universe.

There is no second best.

How truth as mathematically finite value, digits expressed in ...

2026-09-12T13:23:58Z

In reply to nevent1q…cd07
_________________________

How truth as mathematically finite value, digits expressed in binary bits, emerges and changes state in chronology; discrete and distributed blocks of ledgerized time and memory.

What else is missing above?

Yes. how do you think this affects the health of the network long ...

2026-09-10T14:13:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…g6wv
_________________________

Yes.

how do you think this affects the health of the network long term since you technically aren’t serving “full blocks” according to most. If more join on board and begin mining these templates, what changes?

I have been dealing with IRL/fiat stuff for a while now, I finally got a new node up and running and it appears to be stable. I was having issues with Linux/Hardware thru ACPI errors from GPE _L24 handler which would crash and freeze the machine.

I still haven’t deployed a long term fix yet, only post-boot disable of the GPE_L24??¿?? It’s over my head lol but it’s remaining online and accessible.

Can this policy run on something like Core29? How big is the codebase? What are we achieving at 1.55mb?

Hmm what do you mean?

2026-09-08T01:02:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…tu25
_________________________

Hmm what do you mean?

Is October going to be the spooky month where AI hacks an ...

2026-09-07T19:21:43Z

Is October going to be the spooky month where AI hacks an exchange? 👻💀🎃

Feels like we’re due for another exchange wipeout. Too much fiatcorn. CC+Liquid+An Exchange is probably enough to start a global debt spiral on debt backed corn, which would cascade into trad if we can start hitting the treasury company margin calls.

Wiping out the treasury companies would be good for Bitcoin long term. A proof of work system backed by proof of debt is a double spend of logic. NGD then NGU feels necessary to me.

How else will Bitcoin adjudicate workless claims upon a mathematical substrate of conserved work?

I’m happy to be wrong here.

Bitcoin is what a conserved Universe must logically, ...

2026-09-06T02:12:17Z

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

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

2026-09-05T23:50:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…rzv8
_________________________

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

Can you explain these memory step downs a bit more?

2026-09-05T11:04:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…7huf
_________________________

Can you explain these memory step downs a bit more?

Nostr event nevent1qqs2c6e00curu7nh0sz938vj5zvftk470985ukqc89dg5h9302ex74gzyq7y752kzfp4ynes0mfwufev0n620qjqf7lr59mxqczrk6k5ylh8wsjupr0

2026-09-04T14:19:00Z

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

Non-witness data (L0) is immutable objectivity. Witness data (L1) ...

2026-09-03T14:35:28Z

In reply to nevent1q…ugu2
_________________________

Non-witness data (L0) is immutable objectivity. Witness data (L1) is subjective and necessarily optional per SegWit soft fork.

Fees are low because L1 expanded blockspace beyond the 1MB definition to up to 4MB by using arbitrary discounting of the same physical bits stored by nodes. This pushed fees away from L0 blockspace paid in sats to fees paid in bits as L1 segwit data, since segwit bits cost 1/4 price in sats, but are the same physical bit on nodes.

🙏 thank you! Just trying to extend the conversation to get ...

2026-08-28T12:29:58Z

In reply to nevent1q…ddq4
_________________________

🙏 thank you! Just trying to extend the conversation to get more people thinking.

It’s necessary ground a proof of work change in the literal work, since that is what a satoshi mathematically conserves as “money”.

Is Bitcoin a quantum of memory? A quantum of time? A quantum of ...

2026-08-28T02:00:13Z

Is Bitcoin a quantum of memory? A quantum of time? A quantum of energy? A quantum of work? A quantum of entropy? A quantum of causality? A quantum of authority?

Or is Bitcoin just a bounded mathematical quantum? What is a measurement?

L0 - Bitcoin L1 - SegWit L2 - Lightning, Ark, etc. I believe all ...

2026-08-25T16:23:05Z

L0 - Bitcoin
L1 - SegWit
L2 - Lightning, Ark, etc.

I believe all of the answers to our problems lie here in logic and thought.

Nostr event nevent1qqs0vkzndfda6cf3nj3307kcwrnna25smxzrhzqlre8a4j8mxr3ra0gzyq7y752kzfp4ynes0mfwufev0n620qjqf7lr59mxqczrk6k5ylh8wx8xpkk

2026-08-13T16:24:37Z

What is Nakamoto Consensus?

To the BIP110ers who are demoralized. A proof of work change is ...

2026-08-09T20:00:03Z

To the BIP110ers who are demoralized.

A proof of work change is not the answer. That will be the ultimate death by deception.

Find another consensus valid path.

I don’t have an answer because I don’t know. I only offer a ...

2026-08-09T12:49:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…hwmw
_________________________

I don’t have an answer because I don’t know. I only offer a question:

Is SegWit discounting a violation of Nakamoto Consensus?

My logic leads me to believe both chains will die in time to ...

2026-08-09T11:09:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…hss8
_________________________

My logic leads me to believe both chains will die in time to entropy; I may be wrong, so best not to trust me. I don’t think you can fork a chain that’s already corrupted/captured to fix it. Think deeper

I thought it was a great piece of writing Sydney. I’ve ...

2026-07-30T00:14:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…jzqf
_________________________

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.

Bitcoin conserves demand for blockspace. Demand for blockspace ...

2026-07-17T14:38:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…g3hy
_________________________

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…..

Holy shit. I didn’t know it was that bad. Are you accounting ...

2026-07-16T18:07:02Z

In reply to nevent1q…ksel
_________________________

Holy shit. I didn’t know it was that bad. Are you accounting witness data as “block data” too?

I’ve been banging my drum about quantum for a while. Taproot only really caught my eye once Nic said it would be used for “quantum resistance” which I have known is bullshit all along.

How quickly can we fork off taproot?

Nostr event nevent1qqstsl5cqvvs7fy0kukfd2npu6wml34c44tw2nt9wgkmyugf4qz8qvszyq7y752kzfp4ynes0mfwufev0n620qjqf7lr59mxqczrk6k5ylh8wcmhw7y

2026-07-15T02:03:07Z

Bitcoin would be better if I was better.

Voluntary peer-to-peer signal propagation requires pre-defined ...

2026-07-10T13:05:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…flpm
_________________________

Voluntary peer-to-peer signal propagation requires pre-defined invariants to conserve relationships.

Changing an invariant is a tax upon the equilibrium of the system.

Layer 2 networks need to justify their value by paying their fair share cost of demand in sats rather than the nodes paying to accommodate demand through additional bits above the original consensus invariant (1MB) in perpetuity.

Demand is paid up front in sats or through perpetual network maintenance in bits (tax).

Few understand what you know @nprofile…vge8 ...

2026-04-30T18:09:36Z

Few understand what you know anik (nprofile…vge8)