1 block = x bits; time = memory
2,099,999,999,755,528 sats/
128,000,000 bits^2 = 16,406,249.998090 sats per bit^2
Segwit has devalued the Satoshi by up to 16x depending on each blocks size since we need to take the square of memory to get the density (sats per memory surface written).
Take the average blocksize since Segwit and square it; that’s how much on average we as a collective have devalued 1 satoshi vs what Satoshi literally gave us at 1MB cap.
We can also begin to see this when we look at the energy curve of each block in joules per mb^2, we should expect decline in energy density because of subsidy inflation. There is a massive decline in energy density per block post Segwit due to increased memory surface written per block of time.
quotingFriendly reminder if you devalue the bits you devalue the coins
nevent1q…7jkq
The name is literally Bitcoin.
What happens to the relative value of sats versus the bits if we inflate the number of bits per block?
SegWit was a soft fork in name only. We are told we “won” the blocksize war, yet I see blocks greater than 1MB.
2,099,999,999,755,528 sats/8,000,000 bits = 262,499,999.969441 sats per bit per block
Now it can be down to
2,099,999,999,755,528 sats/32,000,000 bits = 65,624,999.992360 sats per bit per block
How does the pricing of a finite blockspace (bitspace) in finite satoshis through the fee market relate to the economics of proof of work and the value of Bitcoin? If Bitcoiners want the value of Bitcoin to “go up”, then why did we devalue the satoshi with respect to the bits per block of time? Why did we distort the relationship and measurement of Bitcoin?
I pray we can return to the original sound economics of blockspace Satoshi gave us. How many more blocks will it take for us to find humility in our own folly? Who’s going to have to courage to admit we are all wrong?