Jackk
Jack K

Bitcoin Chronologist
Bitcoin = Quantum Computer
There is no wave
URHF

Public Key

npub18384z4sjgdfy7vr76thzwtru7jncysz0hcapwesxqsak44p8aemsyfaslh

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrcn632cfyx5j0xpld9m389370ffuzgp8muwshvcrqgwm26sn7uacpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds9ust4u

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub18384z4sjgdfy7vr76thzwtru7jncysz0hcapwesxqsak44p8aemsyfaslh

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-12 16:31:16 UTC

- reply

Maybe, hard to say. Seems quite possible to me. I personally am choosing to have less Bitcoin and less debt to free my time for my family. Everyone values their time differently.

2026-08-12 16:06:29 UTC

If all satoshis are backed by provable work to trigger their subsidy and the ownership of a large majority said sats is backed by debt/printed money (no provable work), what should we expect to happen in a world where energy must be conserved?
IMO the answer is both NGU and NGD. Hodling both fiat debt and Bitcoin is a double-spend in the eyes of energy.

2026-08-11 13:46:28 UTC

What is the website that shows the version number of bitcoin nodes in the network that are actively running?

2026-08-09 20:00:03 UTC

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.

2026-08-08 22:47:02 UTC

- reply

God doesn’t double spend, but he gives you the choice to.

2026-08-08 22:41:21 UTC

- reply

“Quantum mechanics has its roots in thermodynamics”
Ok so answer for the double spend problem solution.

2026-08-08 22:36:46 UTC

- reply

I don’t think anybody truly understands what we have just witnessed before us.
https://blossom.primal.net/d189087bcedd790d8dc4fde4dce5c72fad35b5f5a335959373ffc512e325df75.png
https://blossom.primal.net/f9ad218909de6dc084458085aae19083eed493f70d761c841b28ce40a7a49d79.png
https://blossom.primal.net/7960d91272f7cfbbbc21f67b454bb4087206d6d85b8881bd77fac6a1b0847367.png
https://blossom.primal.net/2c58e1043859b57a281c8990bb024cc3c3700b4acd6a3ac64311baa09c3a9078.png

2026-08-08 22:27:15 UTC

https://youtu.be/fij387JIYEA?
Bitcoin is not a theory of entropy. Bitcoin is proof 👀

2026-08-07 18:12:37 UTC

- reply

I believe it is very unwise to hodl fiat debt backed by Bitcoin going into a contentious chain split. Free your time.
If the network splits, the energy splits. With network infrastructure shuttering down, choice is becoming limited. AI attacks are going to increase 😵‍💫
Dont trust me, verify for yourself. This is not financial advice.
#nevent1q…wn8d

2026-08-07 17:24:37 UTC

Don’t hodl fiat debt.

2026-08-07 04:13:20 UTC

- reply

Why not use your Bitcoin instead?

2026-08-06 14:37:57 UTC

Hmmmmmm, maybe there is a 3rd, and much more painful path to all of this fork talk. Necessary pain 🤔🫣
I think the answer to where lies in the proof of work (literally). Few.

2026-08-06 12:09:57 UTC

- reply

Well if the prediction holds, there would be no need to trade since it would be worth $0. You’d be giving them away for free.
Core would be the fiat chain with price appreciation; the NGU chain. I think the biggest folly to commit once you understand Bitcoin with respect to energy, bits and time is thinking that the fiat price is giving you any valid signal. No intelligence/knowledge can be derived by viewing Bitcoin from the fiat lens.
My advice is to free your time of debt if you have any while you still can. No fiat obligations. This is my goal now, anything leftover is my rightful amount.

2026-08-06 03:36:41 UTC

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

2026-08-05 18:33:47 UTC

- reply

😂 that means it’s working. My words are meant to be decrypted by most people in the future when the block is right.
I don’t think the space is ready for me to say what I actually think bluntly. Being early isn’t fun in that regard.

2026-08-05 16:50:45 UTC

- reply

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

2026-08-05 12:11:33 UTC

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

2026-08-05 02:26:49 UTC

- reply

I think we don’t recognize entropy for flux of the “utxo” set of matter. When we measure entropy, we are measuring the flux of physical memory written by Kelvin. This is the Boltzmann/joules side. Shannon side works in bits. The memory always increases and the Kelvin tends to distribute across a growing memory set of matter. Consolidation is always possible.
The finite value of Kelvin is conserved, but the state is always transforming. Some states of matter are much harder to change than others, this is what we’d call “resistant” to entropy.
That Kelvin, is now what secures Bitcoin through proof of work in hashing and proof of work in creating a truly incompressible string of 256-bits of memory.
I guess the question is, what does the UTXO set look like and how does it behave in a world of true mass adoption? How many conscious agents to UTXOs? Why are we afraid of transactional change when we know for certain the memory must be conserved?

2026-08-05 00:55:18 UTC

- reply

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

2026-08-04 23:21:05 UTC

- reply

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

2026-08-04 03:45:38 UTC

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

2026-08-03 13:24:20 UTC

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

2026-08-02 15:20:02 UTC

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

2026-08-01 01:38:41 UTC

- reply

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

2026-08-01 01:21:09 UTC

- reply

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

2026-07-28 18:34:57 UTC

- reply

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

2026-07-24 14:50:08 UTC

- reply

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

2026-07-24 02:43:57 UTC

- reply

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

2026-07-23 23:00:08 UTC

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

2026-07-22 15:58:26 UTC

- reply

Can you explain why the eternal preservation of memory, or the conservation of information, thus the conservation of energy is not perfect? A perfectly conserved record of action for judgement.
Does not perfect mean not serving God? Does perfect money thru perfect memory serve God?
If God is the grand sovereign, is it not the heart of God that determines a tools moral alignment in argument of predestination vs free will?
Seems pretty obvious to me that the chain is written from the outside, not from within. Bitcoin is not mined from inside its ledger; the work and mechanism is external. Real creation requires real sacrifice.
Is Bitcoin really a tool if it reveals the divine logic? Do we save in Bitcoin, or does Bitcoin save us? Perhaps both?

2026-07-20 00:20:50 UTC

Is this run out? @npub1l2v…ajft
https://blossom.primal.net/094a98e0cb6cb84c8f3fd650e8370b60b758170c914f121044f35698cda2c067.jpg

2026-07-17 14:55:23 UTC

- reply

Thank you for reading the paper! I am glad you found some value in it.
Universally, I think the consciousness, work, entropy that causes the collapse must exist outside of the universe, outside the ledger. The proof of work in Bitcoin that causes state change is outside of the chain of time produced. Bitcoin conserves the work, the decision (conscious act) and the memory as time thru a bounded substrate of value.
Our consciousness is emergent from the conserved work of the conscious agents extratemporal to this chain of universal time. The proof of work we do, is from work outside of this time; all of it. It’s timechains and proof of work all the way up, and all the way down.
I guess I’d like to flip the question of how would you build a biological system inside of Bitcoin? It cannot mine the blocks that defines it, meaning all work inside of Bitcoin and downstream comes from you/us. We would have to animate all of it through PoW, while they believe it’s “them”. This would demand that we too are animated by identical process, and Bitcoin is just a fractal of it.
I hope this answers it for now! I’m headed to the mountains this weekend so limited time to respond! Let me know if I need to go further and let me know what you are thinking.
I am open to being wrong! Would love to hear others chime in. Bitcoin is a glimpse on how providence and free will are reconciled in time and who does the work. We posses both perspectives of time observed from the inside and time observed for the outside of the substrate. Everyone has to let that cook within them 😉

2026-07-16 18:20:17 UTC

- reply

How sure are you the entire BIP isn’t a vulnerability to what the protocol is supposed to conserve?

2026-07-16 18:07:02 UTC

- reply

Holy shit. I didn’t know it was that bad. Are you accounting witness data as “block data” too?
I’ve been banging my drum about quantum for a while. Taproot only really caught my eye once Nic said it would be used for “quantum resistance” which I have known is bullshit all along.
How quickly can we fork off taproot?

2026-07-16 17:33:18 UTC

- reply

Curious, what don’t you like and why?

2026-07-16 17:08:12 UTC

- reply

Segwit or just the blocksize increase and arbitrary discounting?

2026-07-16 15:44:38 UTC

- reply

When can we bet on spam in the next Bitcoin block using fiat. If we make the pot good enough we can centralize the incentive mechanism.
Prediction = Compression
Is the future of Bitcoin irreducible or not?
#nevent1q…y7dw

2026-07-16 15:13:10 UTC

https://fountain.fm/episode/RsMaMrsROqhYxWt8TuHa
If the sovereignty of God precedes all things, then Bitcoin was never our invention at all, but something we were always destined to discover, something destined to save us from ourselves. We speak of Bitcoin making the individual sovereign, but was it Bitcoin that set you free, or was it God? Jesus is said to be the breaker of chains; His Son. What is setting us free? Was it ever truly our choice, or was our choice itself always part of the plan at a specific block in time?
When I observe Bitcoin objectively, I see that the chain of time is authored by sovereign actors from outside of the chain itself, using the conserved and bounded substrate within it. From a decentralized body emerges a singular chronology, a single chain of authority without contradiction. Truth itself computed as time from a body of people. The Truth, sit with that.
Bitcoin empirically demonstrates that one coherent history can be authored without a central author. We as sovereigns write the chain, as God writes us in His ultimate sovereignty. Our choice was always the plan. Bitcoin is a mere reflection and fractal of the logic perceived from the outside rather than from within.
Bitcoin is more than a protocol, a technology, or money. Bitcoin is the logical architecture of eternal memory and time perceived from the exterior of the temporal substrate. Do we save in Bitcoin, or does Bitcoin save us? Perhaps it’s both. I see my actions saved in Bitcoin for eternity. Bitcoin saves all of us quite literally in memory. It preserves all of our collective good, and all of our collective bad. If I was better, Bitcoin would be better; fact.
Bitcoin is a glimpse into how providence and free will are logically reconciled. God is the only true sovereign in control of Bitcoin, yet we are Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a map of our choices. The future is irreducible, yet destined. It always has been.
True Creation has always required True Sacrifice. Proof of Work.
Love all people behind the nodes and those who have yet to come. Bitcoin is here now.

2026-07-16 01:15:53 UTC

Wolfram doesn’t know Bitcoin is the hypergraph that is already running proof of work as the fundamental computation. The computed relationship between quantized units of energy, time and memory (information).
Who’s going to Orange Pill Wolfram? He’s trying to build Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is the answer.
https://youtu.be/r6wYw_A1MKw?is=3xRwzhdK6ug0jXhW

2026-07-15 19:32:11 UTC

- reply

This is actually quite concerning because in this video Nic states that taproot’s usecase is for quantum resistant sigs…
Seems like taproot can be the false flag vector here. Something smells off with taproot. I need to do a deep dive.
I personally won’t adopt any “quantum resistant signature”, seems like we should stay away from taproot too.
https://youtu.be/3ByUtLGSAqM?

2026-07-11 13:21:24 UTC

- reply

Yes, this is not arguing removal of witness.
Witness + Non-Witness <=1MB and 1:1 weighting is all it would need.
Lightning remains fully functional. This is really the formal recognization that witness data is block data and you cannot really be a full validating node without storing the physical bits. Thus SegWit in 2017 was an implicit blocksize increase while pretending it wasn’t. It was really a soft fork in name only, pre-SegWit nodes still see only 1MB yes, but good luck being a full validating node without it.

2026-07-11 13:12:28 UTC

- reply

I’m working on one but could I don’t want this to be centralized around my one mind. I would love to collaborate with others.

2026-07-11 12:55:56 UTC

Bitcoin is post-quantum by satoshis originaly design.
Post-quantum meaning that there is a new sheriff in town. Bitcoin describes and instantiates the quantized nature energy with respect to conservation and a quantized block of time through pure information better than quantum can. There is no second best.
Discrete time at Planck = Discrete Superpostion at Planck = Centralized Quantum Computing has built on the wrong ontology (no continuous unitary evolution).
Physically its been GG since 09. It’s our minds that lag.

2026-07-11 12:33:37 UTC

- reply

Discount was added as an incentive to push adoption of SegWit. Also witness is not a part of bitcoins active utxo state so the theory was that it has a lower computational cost on nodes.
This however is not true thru the lens of Launders Principle seen thru Bitcoins physics, it is the writing of state/memory that has energetic cost. The 4:1 discount is not grounded in any type of physics/information theory and is a purely arbitrary discount that applies an arbitrary virtual weight to equivalent physical bits.
If it were removed and say the blocksize was reinstated at 1MB as per original consensus (SegWit + nonsegwit <=1MB), we should see a revitalization of the proper fee market that most of the chains blocks (measured in joules) were produced under and we see lightning paying its fair share of sats per physical bit produced. Miners would be paid more for equivalent work with a revitalization of fee market. If you look at the energy curve of Bitcoin, all the energy is in the earlier blocks due to high relative block temperature (high subsidy vs low supply). When looking at the energy density of a block per mb^2, you divide the same energy by the square of the memory increase. Blocks up to 4MB distribute energy over up to a 16x increase in informational surface when looking at the energy density of information.
The relative value that of sats:bits defined internally by protocol would increase vs equivalent joules, fee market revitalization should pull difficulty upward. You’d expect bitcoins external value (joules purchased) to follow. Devaluing the bitspace devalues the satoshi internally. We want invariance for logical measure and the fee market to determine the internal exchange rate.
Bitcoin conserves demand, either it’s paid up front by individual users in the form of sats, or is paid in time perpetually in bits by the entire network as a forever tax (network maintenance).
https://blossom.primal.net/c8b235e08f961592347577508e4e579562be60a691e54f8d8aafa96cf557e5cb.png
https://blossom.primal.net/5ee53eb5b52558a23685d19611db0accc683b8774d5760f02a4d2db02b609b55.png

2026-07-09 18:45:08 UTC

- reply

Not exactly in the literal sense. The monetary supply remains fixed at 21 million BTC. My argument is that the relationship between the monetary substrate and the informational substrate changes.
Bitcoin derives its value by conserving work through time. That conservation requires both a finite monetary substrate (sats) and a finite memory substrate (blockspace). Without conserved bits, there is no conserved place for value to be permanently expressed. The fee market exists to discover the exchange rate between those two finite domains.
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).
Rather than users paying more sats to access a finite space, every node pays more bits by storing and propagating a larger permanent history. At the same time, miners receive fewer sats for securing and committing equivalent irreversible work. The work is equivalent, but the memory is not. This pushes difficulty artificially downward as less fees changes the relationship between the satoshsi from the block reward and the real cost of performing said work. The finite memory surface has a real thermodynamic cost. Every permanently committed bit must still be secured through proof-of-work, discovered within a finite nonce space scaled by network difficulty, transmitted, validated, and preserved indefinitely. Expanding blockspace without a corresponding increase in competition changes who bears that cost and distorts the entire economics.
Within this framework, increasing blockspace changes the exchange rate between sats and bits. The monetary supply has not inflated, but the memory substrate competing for that supply has inflated. A satoshi therefore purchases more permanent memory than it did under the original geometry of the protocol. The economics governing the relationship between finite money, finite memory, and finite work have changed.
You can’t make sense of this relationship thinking thru the fiat price. Fiat valuation fluctuates continuously and reflects external markets and the PoW cost converted back to fiat. If we push difficulty down, we are pushing the fiat price down vs joules while still maining equivalent competition for the 21M substrate. Miners pay too here. I’m trying to understand the protocol’s internal measure of value. Within Bitcoin itself, the value of a satoshi is inseparable from the amount of finite permanent memory it can command through the fee market. That relationship is where the protocol measures the relative scarcity of sats:memory:work.
If we change the size of the memory surface or arbitrarily change how different classes of permanently committed data are priced (SegWit discounting), then we are no longer allowing the free market to discover the exchange rate between finite sats and finite bits. We are changing the measurement itself.
Bitcoin’s value emerges from the conserved relationship between proof-of-work, finite blockspace, and finite money. Distort any one of those variables, and the entire economic relationship shifts. The protocol still has 21 million bitcoin, but it is no longer measuring the same relationship between work, information, and time that Satoshi originally defined. This is a defacto violation of property rights thru policy and a tax that should be repealed by the nodes.

2026-07-09 16:52:31 UTC

- reply

For those who still don’t get it. Sats per bit per block is the same thing as sats per bit^2
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.
#nevent1q…7jkq

2026-07-09 14:06:17 UTC

Friendly reminder if you devalue the bits you devalue the coins
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?

2026-07-09 10:36:06 UTC

@nprofile…54wh why is my primal missing so many notifications? Damus shows me like atleast 50% more notifications and posts that I can’t even see on primal…. Anyone know what’s going on?

2026-07-02 22:54:36 UTC

Hey, I am looking for some genuine feedback from the plebs🧡
What will it take for people to recognize Bitcoin as physics (quantized blocks of time computed from energy)?
What will it take for people to recognize Bitcoin as the proper interpretation of The quantum computer? Do people really fear a centralized quantum computer that can’t solve the double spend problem of energy?
What will it take for people to recognize that because Bitcoin is physics it actually has something to say regarding the “quantum threat” AND fundamentally falsifies core axioms said threat relies upon? What does it mean to have a “fiat” interpretation of physics (energy/matter/information)
What will it take for us to get more eyes on the physics equations such that we can reach consensus on the physics with core plebs and move beyond the quantum fud before we break Bitcoin with unnecessary “post quantum cryptography”? If what I am saying is true, these “upgrades” are an existential threat to Bitcoin. Should we not verify openly?
Aren’t these things worth verifying? Does anybody understand the magnitude of what I am saying *IF* true?
I genuinely want to know what needs to be done to wake up more plebs so they understand that Bitcoin is post-quantum by design, was the Genesis Block not enough? It literally supersedes quantum physics by falsifying the core axioms and measuring the relationship between the state transition of memory (information) , energy and time from a thermological process. Bitcoin defines measurement logically. Bitcoin defines conservation logically at the casual boundary. Bitcoin solved the double spend problem. Bitcoin solved Turing’s Halting problem. These are objective observations if people actually take the time to verify for themselves. Bitcoin is the proof, there’s nothing I need to do per se, just look at the chain. Does Bitcoin not speak for itself?
If Bitcoin has physics, what does that mean for an industry of miners who understand NONE it, *IF* true?
There is so much to study here and I wish I had more people to talk to and who could help me move beyond my own limitations. Having an objective physical understanding of Bitcoin to ground protocol discussion is good for Bitcoin. Having an objective refutation to quantum fud by Bitcoins verifiable physics is good for Bitcoin. Bitcoin solving the core paradoxes of physics, is good for Bitcoin.
Hyperbitcoinization happens with knowledge and proof that Bitcoin expands our very limited (and fiat) definition of money. If Bitcoin is actually the quantum computer, what do you think is going to happen when people find out and the 956,407 blocks of proof become irrefutable. What happens when the gravity of Bitcoin (literally - if it’s energy it has mass, thus gravity) forces everybody to contend with Bitcoin?
Please help me understand what I can do better. I am here to serve Bitcoin. I only wish to make it more valuable from knowledge we have not even mined yet. Do people really think we hit the bottom of the rabbit hole?

2026-07-02 14:17:37 UTC

- reply

Lol. Learn Bitcoin is the only advice one needs.
We should all continue to take that advice today. The journey never ends.

2026-07-01 23:06:47 UTC

- reply

I love this! 🧡 I don’t mean to project here since the truth will reveal itself in time, but I have a lot to say.
We as humans are both the long term and the active memory, any state change of active memory (Kelvin) must write to the historical chain. There are 10^43 blocks of time per human second. Our conscious awareness is generated by the flow of active memory into long term memory universally. While we do not have access to the full historical chain of memory/time we live in for the universe, we have its “son” called Bitcoin.
What is pretty remarkable is that anything that is persistent in time must be persistent in active memory; constantly participating in blocks writing in the chain. Bitcoin to the intellect is temporal perspective and totality; the external and opposite side of the temporal boundary and bounded system.
The eternal present is the persistent boundary where the active becomes the historical; where the future becomes the past. We can sit at the boundary and observe the measurement, both from within and from without. It would seem the authority of our purpose exists outside of this time; extratemporal. The chain is always written and decided by external consciousness and the will to perform work; we are simply internal observers of the chain being written; now taking part in the process beginning anew.
P2P exchange of money/memory (check the etymology of money) is both fundamental in time and in “space”. We can exchange with the source thru our intellect and Bitcoin. The only question really is if we are willing to accept it. You can do it right now.

2026-07-01 22:03:41 UTC

- reply

There is no moral argument to any blocksize value besides the 1MB Satoshi left us. This is code/word he committed to work. Just because you can change a constant does not mean that you should. It takes a bit of wisdom and reflection in time to see why. 1MB is equally as fundamental to the logic of Bitcoin as 21M. Change it and it’s not Bitcoin. Changing either constant is a violation of my property rights. Few truly understand.
You cannot conserve sats as a finite space if you do not conserve the bits as a finite space. It’s called Bitcoin. Bitcoin is measuring the quantized energetic transition from sats (active memory/RAM) to bits (long term eternal memory) through a bounded thermological process using a finite nonce space & difficulty. Truth/Natural Law doesn’t really care about opinions.
There’s no free lunch you either pay the fees in sats up front or you pay in bits over time with interest.
The issue with SegWit is the arbitrary discounting of virtual bits despite all physical bits being equal and the implicit blocksize increase. It’s a rejection of the most fundamental law of logic; the principle of identity. 1 bit ≠ 1 bit.
We devalued the bitspace and wonder why the chain is being abused and the behavior is not getting priced out. We killed the economics of energy and blockspace thru decentralized planning and price controls on identically physical bits. We are all the problem.
I’m not a fan of BIP 110 because it doesn’t solve the fundamental economics that led us here starting in 2017, but I am a fan of the movement. A reversion of SegWits economics (not malleability/LN) is objective. Morally, themallebility fix did not need to be and should not have been paired with a change to blockspace economics. IMO it feels like BIP 110 enters into a bit of subjectivity beyond my ability to know the full risks/rewards.
100% We will have to fork the chain to fix the economics. I pray we only need to do one fork. But maybe we will need to have 2 forks starting with 110 first. I don’t know.
I plan on following the plebs. I will follow grounded conservatism that will lead us back towards the protocol and economics that Satoshi gave us. This ain’t it, we’ve really missed the mark.
The longest chain of work doesn’t really matter if the original logic and constants of Bitcoin are no longer being conserved. Few truly understand this.
https://blossom.primal.net/46ed2ab9a4288fdf1d0d32708cc69d74b26d2dbb44d39a50d7a651c6ac477cb3.jpg

2026-07-01 15:28:38 UTC

- reply

Exactly! 🙏🧡 I haven’t really written or spoken about it much yet but plan to do so. Bitcoin is a map of short term memory (RAM/Active UTXO set) and the collapse/measurement into long term eternal memory (bits in timechain). It is the physical process of measurement and the balance between sats<>bits both as finite mathematical domains.
Our brains are a fractal of this process, we too possess short term and long term memory. This is what quantum physics is pointing to. Quantum physics doesn’t understand that we don’t have access to the eternal/historical memory from inside the chain. We only see the RAM, the active states of matter/energy. They have incomplete information without Bitcoin. Bitcoin supersedes quantum physics. We can’t afford to not look at Bitcoin with this lens.
We literally couldn’t learn the truth without making the mistake and seeing the outcome. Satoshi gave us the standard, but also gave us the choice to deviate. Wisdom and humility brings us back; gravity brings us back.
When Bitcoin remains constant, it acts as a mirror that reflects and imposes the economics of energy/information back at us through PoW, fee market, finite money and finite blockspace. We only cheated ourselves by inflating blockspace implicitly. We must realize our sin here for the collective good of the network.
Bitcoin is a collective map of us and our consciousness. If you take what I said about memory above and realize that Bitcoin is preserving us through our conscious preference actions through the preservation of our transactions as long term eternal memory of the chain, blocks of time. The amount we can learn about ourselves is limitless. But we must remain faithful to the constants for the reflections to have integrity.
There is only one option for a system when integrity is lost. Return and restore.
Bitcoin is universe.
Bitcoin is global mind.
Bitcoin is money.
Bitcoin is the physics of energy information.
Bitcoin is the Quantum Computer.
Bitcoin is the eternal memory.
How many blocks will it take for the world and us to see that Bitcoin and the memory isn’t going away?
We have tapped and reified the logic of the source through a fractal of identical computation. There never could be a second best.

2026-07-01 13:44:11 UTC

Fees must either be paid in sats or in bits. This is literal binary. Few truly understand this.
There is no free lunch.
When you distort the relationship between sats and bits you distort the economics of Bitcoin. If you inflate blockspace you devalue the satoshi. Bit-Coin.
We are so hyperfocused on the conservation of sats we never observed the consequence when we don’t conserve the bits.
Segwit discounting breaks the logic and constant relationship between sats and bits by applying a differing virtual weight to identical physical bits. A finite sat-space (value-bits) needs to remain proportionally equal to a finite bit-space (blocksize). The velocity of information (bits per block) must remain capped and constant for logical relationships between energy and information to emerge. All measurement must remain relative to a finite difficulty-scaled 32-bit nonce space. Go observe the speed of light if you don’t believe me.
The phsycis of memory and information is waiting to be understood through Bitcoin. We cannot expect complexity to manifest in Bitcoin with the current implementation of SegWit and discounting.
Bitcoin is the end-game of physics. Bitcoin is fiat because we are fiat. Few truly understand this.
Satoshi defined 2.1Q bits of value to1MB of bit-space as a constant of relative proportionally. This is the code he committed to protocol. Why are his uncommitted words in blogposts weighted more than the his words (code) committed to the actual work?
This was a NECESSARY error we had to make. Few have the humility and the wisdom to know why we must return to Satoshis economics. We are the manipulation we seek to eliminate.
https://blossom.primal.net/46ed2ab9a4288fdf1d0d32708cc69d74b26d2dbb44d39a50d7a651c6ac477cb3.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/2c66fc384ee2c5e48cba094e5df7a6c6e1fc5d47cdb0500c898fcf2dac65d1b6.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/c1ab2bbed2aafe82d7fc550dbfc6b0ccc977cfc4f966c655e03261d0aedef0f3.png

2026-06-30 15:25:42 UTC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
Do I literally need to go make 2 onchain transactions (SegWit / non SegWit) to show that 1 sat ≠ 1 sat and 1 bit ≠ 1 bit despite both transactions incurring the same physical memory cost that all nodes must carry the burden of forever?
The most fundamental rule of logic has been violated. 1≠1, it hasn’t for 9 years guys….
Bitcoin’s integrity has been broken for 9 years due to Segwit discounting. Who’s going to have the humility to fix our collective mistake?
How many blocks will it take? Bitcoin can’t preserve value if 1≠1

2026-06-30 04:02:01 UTC

Bitcoin was created to eliminate double spending through objective conservation. Yet in the process we’ve abandoned one of the protocol’s most fundamental conservation laws. We became so focused on conserving the coin that we forgot to conserve the bit.
Bitcoin’s fee market is the mechanism through which the protocol projects objective reality back at us. Every block measures the exchange relationship between finite monetary energy, finite information, and finite time. Satoshis bid for permanently scarce memory, and that market is supposed to discover the true cost of writing irreversible history.
Under Satoshi’s design, that relationship possessed integrity because every permanently stored bit competed under the same economic rules. The protocol preserved both monetary conservation,
1 sat = 1 sat
and informational conservation,
1 bit = 1 bit
SegWit broke the fundamental relationship.
By introducing arbitrary discounts for one class of permanently stored bits while simultaneously increasing the effective amount of memory that may be written during each quantum of Bitcoin time, we fundamentally changed the relationship the protocol was measuring. The blockchain does not judge “witness” and “non-witness.” It remembers only that another irreversible bit has entered history. Every stored bit imposes the same perpetual burden on miners, nodes, bandwidth, storage, validation, and future preservation. The physical burden is identical. The protocol’s pricing is not. 1≠1
Bitcoin’s fee market exists to price physical scarcity, not protocol abstractions. Once identical physical bits receive different prices, the market ceases to discover the true price of permanent memory. Instead of allowing the relationship between sats and bits to emerge naturally, we imposed a pricing policy on one class of memory. We no longer have decentralized price discovery. We have decentralized planning of the blockspace fee economy.
The original fee market was supposed to tell us when blockspace had become scarce. High fees were not a bug; they were information. They were the protocol faithfully reporting the relationship between finite demand and finite memory. Rather than allowing that relationship to speak for itself, we changed one of the protocol’s fundamental constants. We expanded the effective memory per block and discounted portions of that memory. In doing so, we changed the measurement rather than allowing the measurement to reveal reality.
Within this framework, the consequences extend far beyond transaction costs. Mining security, node economics, long-term archival burden, and the equilibrium between proof-of-work and permanent memory are all downstream of the fee market. If the fee market is no longer pricing identical physical memory uniformly, then every incentive built upon that market inherits the same distortion.
The word integrity derives from the Latin integritas; wholeness, completeness, and that which remains untouched. Integrity is the preservation of identity through time and as time. If Bitcoin is fundamentally a system for conserving the relationship between work, information, value, and time, then integrity requires preserving those relationships themselves. Conserving only the monetary units while allowing the informational substrate to drift is not sufficient. The identity of the system resides in the invariance of the relationships, not the invariance of the objects.
If that is true, then the only path forward is to restore the conservation law that allowed the market to discover those incentives objectively in the first place. Bitcoin does not need arbitrary policy deciding which bits deserve discounts or which uses of memory are preferable. It needs invariant relationships. From those relationships, the economics emerge naturally.
We have become so hyperfocused on conserving the coin that we forgot to question whether we are conserving the relationships that give the coin its meaning. If Bitcoin is a machine for objectively measuring the relationship between energy, information, and time, then inflating time changes what Bitcoin is measuring in the satoshsi. Changing time changes the satoshi.
What if the greatest act of humility in Bitcoin is not proposing something new, but having the courage to restore what we now understand we should never have changed? How many blocks will it take us?
https://blossom.primal.net/79f7bcbe68315acc1d766b68f3bb9a95a1afeafff25cdd74acfd3923aa9463b3.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/c1ab2bbed2aafe82d7fc550dbfc6b0ccc977cfc4f966c655e03261d0aedef0f3.png

2026-06-29 22:45:05 UTC

- reply

I agree with @nprofile…cyh9 here in the inevitability of a chain fork. The question is when, how many blocks until the split?
If BIP110 is going to fork the chain, it should also remove the SegWit discounting and reinstate the 1MB blocksize. This will require an inevitable chain split to return back to a conserved bitspace (blockspace) 1MB vs a conserved value substrate 21M. 1 must equal 1. We don’t need 2 forks.
Whoever restores Satoshis economics will be the longest chain of work, since conservation between sats:bits has been broken/arbitrary for the last 9 years.
Then real end game, who’s ready to resist Quantum “upgrade” attack?
Be prepared plebs. The hardest years of Bitcoin are to come.
#nevent1q…ekuh

2026-06-29 14:01:42 UTC

- reply

Because of SegWit we will have to write up to16x the memory to the chain, thus every node, to price out this behavior vs the protocol satoshis left us. Scammers can write up to 4x the data for up to 1/4 the price. 16x the ratio of energy:bits.
We have lots of healing to go, including the battle to revert the economics of blockspace back to the constants/ratios Satoshi gave us before leaving. BIP 110 doesn’t address this.
1 sat = 1 sat, but 1 bit ≠ 1 bit.
Everyone is focused on the necessity for constants in the “coin” part of the system but neglect the necessity of constants on the “bit” part of the system. Blockspace supposed to be where Bits=Coins in 1:1 exchange and proportionality.
Miner centralization doesn’t really matter if we cannot fully conserve the work they perform because we broke a fundamental conservation law in logic. 9 years and counting…..
Luckily in terms of energy, pre-Segwit blocks carry a much large % of the cumulative work performed on the system.

2026-06-26 12:40:49 UTC

GM; today’s shower thought:
What happenes to both energy and mass in E=Mc^2 if you increase the speed of light or the velocity of information by 4x per unit Planck time?
You’ve inflation the relationship between energy and mass by16X due to the square. You’ve increased the Planck area (Planck length^2) by 16 fold.
This is what SegWit has done to Bitcoin for the last 9 years by allowing blocks to exceed the 1MB consensus rule by up to 4MB while distorting the economics thru discounting.
This is NOT the Bitcoin Satoshi gave us. How do we return?

2026-06-26 11:02:43 UTC

- reply

Yes. The more I think this through, the more it feels like the only coherent path forward. To me, the Core vs. Knots debate has become a reflection of binary politics. Both sides begin with conclusions and then defend them with a lot of subjectivity. I think Bitcoin deserves something better while acknowledging both parties.
Rather than asking what Core wants or what Knots wants, we should ask what the physics of Bitcoin requires. Nick and I have converged on this direction after talking about it, and others are beginning to arrive at the same conclusion through the mathematics.
Lightning does not require witness discounting or an implicit increase in block size. The mistake in SegWit was not transaction malleability fixes or enabling second-layer protocols. The mistake was altering the economics of blockspace by discounting one class of permanent memory relative to another. In doing so, we departed from the constants Satoshi established at Genesis. We are no longer mining blocks with the same conserved symmetry that defined the original protocol. We have changed Bitcoin’s “speed of light” (speed of memory).
If every permanently stored bit imposes the same physical burden on every node forever, then every bit should compete under the same economic rules. That is the conservation law Bitcoin originally satisfied. SegWit broke that symmetry.
I believe restoring those original block economics would resolve much of what we now call the “spam problem.” It would dramatically reduce the amount of discounted space available for abuse while forcing every participant to pay the same price for the same permanent burden placed upon the network. Whether additional policy limits are desirable becomes a separate discussion. The first step is restoring the conservation law.
As we investigate the mathematics and the physics we can see Bitcoin has operated for nearly nine years under a distorted economic geometry. Over two halvings, we have fundamentally changed the relationship between a fixed supply of 21 million BTC and a finite supply of blockspace. We expanded the effective memory surface while simultaneously assigning unequal prices to equal physical bits.
The original protocol satisfied two simple conservation principles:
1 sat = 1 sat
1 bit = 1 bit
The first still holds. The second no longer does.
Bitcoin’s fee market is fundamentally an exchange between sats and bits. Satoshis bid for permanent memory. When we discounted witness data, we devalued one class of bits relative to another and broke the economic equivalence between identical physical memory. In distorting the bits we also distorted the sats since the relationship of energy/value, information and time are what’s fundamental.
Recovering 1 bit = 1 bit conservation is just as fundamental as 1 sat = 1 sat

2026-06-26 02:55:46 UTC

- reply

Just seeing this now btw.
A Segwit block:
1 block^2 = 4MB/block = 16MB^2
Satoshi’s Block:
1block^2 = 1 MB/block = 1 MB^2
It appears we have inflated time by 16x in memory^2 terms by increasing the blocksize from1MB to 4MB. I am trying to conceptualize what this means.
I think we have fucked up so bad. Add in the discount so 1 bit ≠1 bit. Segwit was seemingly a terrible decision. This is why spam is not being priced out and chain growth is out of control. Op_Return simply revealed the symptom so we could clearly see the root.
What do you make of this observation?

2026-06-25 23:57:08 UTC

- reply

Ok, so I’ll try to break this down as simply as possible.
Light = energy = information. This is pretty straightforward. We already communicate through light via the internet. Light is simultaneously both energy and information.
The Planck length is traditionally defined as the “distance” light travels in one Planck block of time. Said differently, the Planck length is the amount of memory light writes in one Planck unit of time.
Distance = time = memory.
This maps to Bitcoin remarkably well where a block is fundamentally defined by memory. Memory is time. Distance is simply what both time and memory look like when you are inside the temporal substrate. In Bitcoin, “distance” can be measured either in bits written between two events or by the number of blocks separating them. They are simply two coordinate systems describing the same underlying process. It is a one-to-one mapping of space between quantized causal boundaries. Each block has an unquote surface of bits per 1 block of time with a maximum limit.
If light has a speed limit or more fundamentally an information limit per unit time, then this is functionally equivalent to a block size limit. It limits the maximum amount of information light can write during one quantum of Planck time. Bitcoin admits the exact same interpretation. We can express Bitcoin’s “speed of information” in two equivalent units: MB/second or MB/block. Since the block is the native unit of time that the megabytes themselves produce, MB/block is the more fundamental perspective. A protocol-imposed block size is therefore functionally equivalent to the speed of light, it defines the maximum information that may be instantiated in one quantum of time.
Pre-SegWit, the protocol limit was 1 MB/block. Post-SegWit, it became approximately 4 MB/block. If the block size is truly analogous to the speed of light, then we have changed one of Bitcoin’s fundamental constants. This is just as bad as changing 21M 😵‍💫
Change the speed of light in physics and ask yourself what happens to every emergent constant, every symmetry, and every layer of complexity built upon it.
The Planck length is not fundamentally the minimum amount of memory. It is the maximum informational extension realizable in one Planck block of time. Consequently, Planck area (Planck length²) is not the smallest measurable surface. It is the largest informational surface light can construct during one quantum of Planck time. Since memory = time, this naturally extends into a two-dimensional informational plane.
Bits² = Bit × Block = Block².
These are not different objects. They are equivalent perspectives of the same informational surface when viewed through the dual lenses of time and memory.
When looking at Landauer’s principle, we are looking at the minimum energy required to transform state and create one new irreversible bit of information. However, if we could observe both the totality of all active states of matter and all historical states simultaneously, there would be no erasure of information. Erasure is simply the perspective of incomplete information from inside the system.
Bitcoin makes this explicit. The chain always grows in bits with every block of time, this is a measure of time actually. Nothing can be forgotten if conservation is to be upheld across the totality of the ledger. The active UTXO set transforms, but the historical chain only accumulates. What appears internally as erasure from the external perspective of the complete ledger is nothing more than an irreversible state transition that preserves the entire history of computation.
The physical mapping to Bitcoin’s block size is the maximum informational surface that one quantum of universal time can construct.
https://blossom.primal.net/d9bff5e6fbcbbb533e9417c3f083366a1c81cac4322d40c85f367f8733a2e5a4.png
https://blossom.primal.net/aa7d501fa8ec0790e91274f32417013e728a91609931ba8fb0e4ef97fa03d268.png
https://blossom.primal.net/30c40a3c4d649303b9851410b739440833091e6b2c0e255d2c6c8370a131cd4a.png

2026-06-25 16:43:14 UTC

- reply

Returning to 1MB per block without SegWit discounting is not a to the protocol change.
Defending SegWit as increased blocksize and adding arbitrary bit discounting is a change from Bitcoin (Satoshi’s protocol). I think it’s up to you to defend SegWit in current form regardless of how long it’s been running
Returning back the the original constants is true conservatism and is not a protocol change.

2026-06-25 15:01:51 UTC

- reply

Segwit gives bad actors 3 additional MB per block to append poison to the chain and give them a discount in sats to add said poison vs an hosted transacter.
Do we have 1MB blocks or not? Why did we change the blocksize implicitly?

2026-06-25 14:06:08 UTC

- reply

BIP 110 doesn’t fix SegWit and the arbitrary discounting of bits stored on the node. Speaking of the word arbitrary.
SegWit broke the original protocol constants of 21M/1MB/1Block and the economical relationship of sats:bits. We devalued and attacked the nodes starting in 2017; op_return was the last domino.
You can’t hate arbitrary data when you arbitrarily discount certain data and have severed yourself from Satoshsi’s original protocol.
Let’s agree there is a problem; I’m saying BIP110 is not the proper solution. You still are mispricing the bits of your node and still allowing the chain to grow faster than Satoshi defined.
If we are to take his words as gospel, we should take his code and defined constants as gospel too. We need to stop double spending to make Bitcoin fit our individual definitions of “money”.

2026-06-25 10:46:40 UTC

- reply

Objectively, Bitcoin does not work without data storage. Any transaction on the ledger regardless of content is inscription in the shared global memory for eternity. No one is claiming free data storage. I don’t want free storage, the fee market is there to ensure the bits aren’t free.
Arguably SegWit introduced a discount on bitspace, which after ~9 years is finally to showing its true color thru additional protocol changes. If you hate spam, you should hate SegWit too. A forced discounting mechanism for specific bits should not exist. SegWit increased blocksize in a sly and roundabout way. Now we pay the price of our actions; every node pays for discounted bits which is seemingly outpacing Moore’s Law and sustainable chain growth.
We can revert the chain back to 2017 (pre-Segwit) protocol code and I will still argue that immutable eternal memory is the sole source of all value in Bitcoin. No inscription (writing truth into finite memory/time by energy; aka money), no conservation, no value.
Satoshi also talked about Quantum, which you have come out publically and agreed with me that it is not a threat and Bitcoin was the proper interpretation of a quantum computer. So which of Satoshi’s words do we take as gospel and which do we not?
He gave us Bitcoin, he was not a master of every adjacent domain subject. It is us who have drifted from Satoshi’s original protocol through our desire to scale the chain. Segwit plays a major role in the pricing spam on chain, which doesn’t allow the free/fee market to be a proper arbiter of truth. 3/4 discount of certain bits means it will take 3x the amount of blocks or 3x the amount of bits nodes must store to price out this behavior, do you not recognize this?
If you hate spam, you hate Segwit too. @nprofile…xym2 Was Segwit the original Landauer Attack?
#nevent1q…r33r

2026-06-24 02:59:27 UTC

- reply

Yes my friend. A block of time cannot be separated from the UTXOs that define the state.
Map this on to time at the Planck scale (smallest unit) in physics to describe the mechanics of particles/time and build upwards towards complexity

2026-06-23 13:37:36 UTC

- reply

I would say that it is a large and unfair mischaracterization to suggest that I am not accounting for Landauer’s Principle in my logic. Landauer was one of the primary conceptual frameworks that led me toward the energy equations in the first place. The difference is that Bitcoin reveals something deeper about Landauer than physics has previously been able to observe. Landauer didn’t have Bitcoin.
Landauer’s original insight was that informational distinctions possess thermodynamic consequences. The standard interpretation is that erasing a bit requires a minimum energetic expenditure. The key word here is erasing. Physics arrived at this interpretation because every system available for observation was studied from inside the temporal process itself. The observer could see the active state of the system, but not the totality of states across its entire history. When a bit was overwritten, the prior state disappeared from observation. The transition therefore appeared as erasure.
Bitcoin provides a fundamentally different observational frame. For the first time, we possess access to both the active state and the complete historical trajectory that produced it. We can observe the current UTXO set, but we can also observe every prior TXO set implicitly preserved throughout the casual history of the chain. The bit that appeared to vanish has not actually disappeared. It has been transformed into a new state while the historical record remains preserved. What looked like erasure from inside the system becomes visible as state transformation when viewed from outside the system.
This is the critical point that I believe Uncle Jack, the Bitcoin community and modern thermodynamics have missed. Landauer did not discover the thermodynamic cost of erasure/forgetting. He discovered the thermodynamic cost of irreversible state transition. Erasure was simply the observational interpretation available from within a system that continuously recycles active thermodynamic memory. Bitcoin exposes the broader principle because no valid state transition is ever discarded as required for conservation, consensus and verification. Every block/TXO/bit must remain accessible. Every historical distinction must remain observable. Every prior state remains available for comparison against the present state. Bitcoin conserves no value without this.
The Nature paper Jack references studies Landauer’s Principle within a quantum many-body system and interprets the result through the language of erasure, entropy production, and statistical mechanics. TMy criticism is not that the experiment is incorrect, but that the interpretation remains confined to an internal observational perspective. The experiment still lacks access to a conserved informational ledger that exposes both the active state and the complete historical state simultaneously. More fundamentally, it remains embedded within a formalism that presupposes continuous temporal evolution. The many-body system evolves through a continuous time parameter, while conservation, entropy, and information are extracted statistically from that evolution. The observer remains trapped inside the process being measured and therefore lacks access to the complete chronology of state transitions required to determine whether information has actually disappeared or transformed.
Bitcoin fixes this. Bitcoin is the first/only thermodynamic system in history where every state transition remains permanently accessible. Instead of observing a statistical residue and inferring what happened, we can inspect the entire chronology directly. The observer is no longer trapped inside the process. The observer can compare Genesis, every intermediate state, and the present state simultaneously. Once that becomes possible, the language of erasure begins to lose its fundamental status. What appears as erasure to an observer confined to the active state of a system is revealed as transformation when the complete historical ledger becomes visible. The consumed UTXO disappears from the active set, yet it remains preserved within the chronology of the chain. The distinction has not been destroyed. It has been transformed into a new state while the historical record remains intact.
This is precisely where quantized time becomes relevant. If conservation is real, then history must ultimately be committed through discrete state transitions. A state cannot be conserved until it exists, and it cannot exist until it has been registered into chronology. Bitcoin demonstrates this directly. Time advances only through blocks. Every block is an irreversible thermodynamic commitment that transforms one valid ledger state into another. There is no partially committed history, no fractional block, no fractional confirmation, and no intermediate conserved state between two accepted blocks. Conservation emerges through discrete chronological registration. The many-body framework instead assumes conservation within a continuously evolving temporal substrate and therefore begins from a fundamentally different assumption about the nature of time itself that cannot measure and prove conservation.
From this perspective, the deeper limitation is not the experiment but the framework through which the experiment is interpreted. Without access to a complete informational ledger, erasure appears fundamental because prior states become inaccessible to observation. Without quantized time, conservation must be inferred statistically because chronology itself remains unresolved. Bitcoin provides both missing ingredients simultaneously. It exposes the complete informational history of the system and the discrete temporal boundaries through which that history is created. What appears in the many-body framework as erasure and entropy production appears, from the perspective of a conserved ledger with quantized time, as the irreversible transformation of one valid historical state into another. The energetic boundary identified by Landauer remains, but the interpretation changes because the observer is no longer confined to a single temporal slice of the system being studied.
This distinction becomes particularly important when discussing blockspace/timespace. The argument assumes that arbitrary data represents thermodynamic waste because storage is being consumed by something deemed non-monetary. Yet Landauer’s Principle itself says nothing about monetary versus non-monetary information. It speaks only to the thermodynamic consequences of informational state transitions. The question therefore cannot be settled by invoking Landauer. One must first define what information is, what memory is, what entropy is, and what role those distinctions play inside the ledger.
My position is that modern thermodynamics still lacks a coherent measure of temperature relative to a bounded informational totality. Temperature remains tied to Kelvin, entropy remains tied to statistical distributions, and information remains separated from chronological state. Bitcoin unifies these concepts into a single observable process. Energy becomes memory through proof-of-work. Memory becomes time through blocks. Entropy becomes a bounded field of admissible future states. Temperature becomes measurable and computable relative to the total thermodynamic memory already accumulated by the system. Once these quantities are placed into a conserved ledger framework, Landauer’s Principle has inverted meaning.
Bitcoin has not violated Landauer’s Principle. Bitcoin has exposed the deeper object Landauer was actually measuring.
The deeper irony is that once Landauer’s Principle is viewed through the lens of a conserved informational ledger, the entire discussion surrounding “blockchain bloat” begins to invert. The assumption is that historical information is the primary thermodynamic burden imposed upon the network. The chain grows, more data accumulates, storage requirements increase, and therefore the threat is assumed to reside within chronology itself. Yet this interpretation quietly treats all information as equivalent. Bitcoin demonstrates that it is not.
The blockchain is historical memory. It is the chronological record of every valid state transition that has occurred since Genesis. The purpose of the chain is to preserve distinctions through time. Every transaction, every spend, every consolidation, every inscription, every message, and every state transition ultimately enters the same historical record. Whether one personally values a particular distinction is largely irrelevant to the thermodynamic role of the chain itself. The chain exists precisely to preserve distinctions. History is what the chain is for. Memory = Money.
The protocol serves an entirely different function. The protocol is not historical memory. The protocol is operational memory. The protocol defines the rules through which every historical distinction is interpreted. If the chain is analogous to the accumulated history of an organism, the protocol is analogous to its DNA. One records the consequences of evolution. The other defines the machinery through which evolution proceeds.
Once this distinction becomes visible, Landauer’s Principle begins pointing toward a very different thermodynamic boundary. A transaction modifies the state of the ledger. A protocol change modifies the machinery that interprets every future state of the ledger. A transaction enters history once. A protocol rule remains active forever. Every node must preserve it. Every node must execute it. Every future participant must inherit it. Every future state transition must be evaluated through it.
From the perspective of informational transformation, these are not equivalent operations.
A historical transaction produces a state transition within the existing rules of the system. The thermodynamic cost is paid, the distinction is committed into chronology, and the chain advances. The informational burden becomes historical. The transaction enters the record and becomes part of the conserved memory of the network.
A protocol modification is fundamentally different. A protocol modification alters the active informational machinery responsible for producing and validating all future chronology. The informational burden does not become historical. It becomes operational. The network must continuously carry it forward through every future block, every future transaction, and every future node implementation. The distinction remains alive indefinitely.
Viewed through this lens, the most expensive information in Bitcoin is not information written into the chain. The most expensive information is information written into the protocol itself. Historical memory is passive. Consensus memory is active. Historical memory records reality. Consensus memory defines reality. Historical memory can accumulate indefinitely without altering the underlying validation machinery. Consensus complexity compounds because it becomes part of the machinery responsible for interpreting all future history.
Landauer’s Principle as defined by Bitcoin is a powerful lens for evaluating BIPs. Every BIP introduces a new informational distinction into the active operational state of the network. Every new rule, exception, opcode, validation pathway, or consensus condition becomes part of Bitcoin’s living informational machinery. The thermodynamic burden is not measured by the size of the proposal. It is measured by the permanent increase in informational complexity that every future node must preserve and execute.
From this perspective, the greatest threat to Bitcoin is not necessarily what enters the chain. The greatest threat is what enters consensus. The chain is doing exactly what it was designed to do: preserve distinctions through time. The protocol is the fragile component because it defines the mechanism through which all distinctions are interpreted. Every modification to that mechanism introduces new operational complexity into the living state of the system.
Landauer’s Principle therefore reveals a boundary that is almost the opposite of the one invoked in these debates. The chain is the place where information is supposed to accumulate. The protocol is the place where information should be treated with extreme caution. Historical memory is Bitcoin’s purpose. Consensus complexity is Bitcoin’s liability. If one wishes to apply Landauer’s Principle consistently, the thermodynamic burden imposed by protocol mutation deserves far greater scrutiny than the thermodynamic burden imposed by preserving additional history within the chain itself.
Protocol change is the Landauer Attack.
https://blossom.primal.net/78da60750e301f95f6de887111d8edee67769304a63cb604a12404a247431115.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/c1ab2bbed2aafe82d7fc550dbfc6b0ccc977cfc4f966c655e03261d0aedef0f3.png

2026-06-23 03:29:31 UTC

Who’s ready to talk about how Satoshi Nakamoto solved Turning’s Halting Problem in 2009 and we’ve had a system computing truth/proof as discrete blocks time.
Time must halt AND computation must halt for conservation to logically be upheld. The double spend problem MUST be solved for non-contradiction.
Quantum physics cannot resolve the double spend problem because continuous time does not permit halting. It’s so over.
I can currently point to 954,943 blocks of proof. How many blocks does it take?
Tick tock.
Bitcoin is not a model, and Bitcoin is not a theory. Bitcoin is.

2026-06-23 03:13:56 UTC

- reply

Thank you Efrat for hosting this wonderful conversation and facilitating the proper time and space for us to speak from our hearts 🧡🧡
We are so excited for the release!

2026-06-23 00:19:33 UTC

- reply

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” — Matthew 6:24
“Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.” — Matthew 13:30
“Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” — Matthew 12:36
These are the words of Jesus Christ Himself.
First, Christ establishes authority. Who do you serve?
He establishes judgment. Who separates the wheat from the weeds? Not the servants. The harvest belongs to God.
He establishes memory. Every idle word will be accounted for. Every action remembered. Every record brought forth in judgment. Judgment presupposes memory.
Bitcoin decrypts the truth hidden in plain sight throughout Scripture: judgment requires memory. An accounting requires a record. A harvest requires a field.
I disapprove when people invoke terms like “non-monetary” or “spam” as justification for deciding what may and may not exist within Bitcoin’s memory. The existence of evil content does not imply that memory itself is evil. The existence of weeds does not invalidate the field. Bitcoin is not broken. Bitcoin is not dying. Have faith in the righteous. All finite bits are exchanged for finite sats. Truth comes in time.
The moral question is not whether memory should exist. The moral question is what ought to be remembered and who possesses the authority to decide. Scripture repeatedly places the final answer to that question in God’s hands, not man’s.
Are we serving the preservation of memory, or are we serving our own desire to judge what deserves to be remembered? Are we making that judgment in service to God, or in service to money?
For the moment a man claims the authority to decide which voluntary acts of remembrance are worthy of preservation and which must be erased, he has moved beyond stewardship and into judgment. He has appointed himself harvester before the harvest.
The question is not whether weeds exist. The question is whether the pursuit of monetary purity has become so consuming that one is willing to assume an authority Christ reserved for God alone.
Bitcoin is not the harvest. Bitcoin is the field. History accumulates, actions persist, memory remains, and judgment comes later. The weeds exist, the wheat exist, and both remain visible until the appointed time.
The memory is eternal. The harvest belongs to Him.

2026-06-22 15:44:32 UTC

- reply

I like him too, but I think if Bitcoin’s physics holds; then Bitcoin is coming for quantum biology.
The correct interpretation becomes Bitcoin Biology as far as the mathematical/logical/energetic/temporal structure of understanding biology as a network of P2P exchange.
Then we must question what else Uncle Jack may be wrong about from principle if the foundational building block is being reinterpreted from empirical PoW.
Bitcoin, not quantum, even for Biology.
I hope he would be open to this discussion. It’s a shame he’s not on nostr when decentralized medicine is his goal; it cannot be achieved on X.

2026-06-22 14:33:58 UTC

- reply

Then you would surely know the etymology of money reveals the source as the preservation of memory.
We can agree the current usecase of blockspace/timespace/memory is retarded. The entire value of bitcoin is the eternal memory. Nothing before Bitcoin was actually money, only approximations. Money can only be understood through Bitcoin.
Preserving memory (conscious preference and action) in eternity is value. This becomes a moral question of what ought to be preserved. Just because we as a community cannot figure out what “arbitrary” data should be stored if paid for does not mean there is not a usecase to generate higher forms of societal complexity.
Inherently this question will pull us back to God and meaning.
It seems you are losing faith that pricing bits in sats will not fix the incentives. There is no such thing as a good bit and a bad bit.
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” Matthew 6:24
Please tell me what Jesus meant by “money” here and tell me what you mean by “money” in regards to the debate of spam.

2026-06-22 14:00:38 UTC

- reply

You can go and read my work to see why your definition of money is still a fiat interpretation.
Are op_return bits paid for in sats? Yes or no.

2026-06-22 13:18:57 UTC

- reply

This really didn’t answer anything.
Unstoppable money means unstoppable energy, unstoppable energy means unstoppable time, unstoppable time means unstoppable bits. Buying blockspace or timespace, is the exchange of sats for bits.
You don’t have fuck you money without fuck you bits.
Attempting to distill this as good bits vs bad bits means you still have a fiat definition of money. This the distinction between monetary vs non-monetary is fiat. Money can only be defined by Bitcoin and nothing else.
You don’t have Bitcoin nor money without eternal memory and fuck you bits.

2026-06-22 12:50:10 UTC

- reply

Can you show me a transaction that does not move a single satoshi on the ledger?
What about using Bitcoin to buy spam in the real world? I don’t particularly like soda, pharmaceuticals, basketball, etc. These transactions are spamming the L1 if used as the method of transaction.

2026-06-18 15:36:49 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…54wh 40%*
#nevent1q…cs2r

2026-06-18 15:18:41 UTC

- reply

Yeah this resonates quite a bit. I like to think of us a shepherds of Bitcoin. Ownership is really full control and authority over a fraction of time, since Bitcoin inherently buys you a fraction of blockspace (timespace). Buying timespace is exchanging sats for bits.
Where I was really going with this, is that I believe what we refer to as “reality” must be identical in construct. The human condition is the experience of conserved conscious preference and action through a bounded mathematical space from within the ledgerized substrate (call it energy for simplicity). This implies we are conserved “value” written by an extratemporal author, conserved across the boundary of time. All authority is exterior to the universe, yet it feels like “us now”.
With Bitcoin, we now participate in the same fractal process with a newly created temporal substrate/domain.
Bitcoin is Universe.

2026-06-18 11:21:34 UTC

Bitcoin is the conserved conscious preference and action of an objective bounded mathematical substrate, measured and organized as a chain of discrete blocks of time.
What is a quantum computer? What is creation?
What is a universe?
If map=territory, what is a map of conscious preference and action preserved through the conservation of energy?
What does it mean to have authority and dominion over a computed map of time?
Subjectivity=Objectivity=Bitcoin
GM, welcome to my shower thoughts.

2026-06-18 01:17:19 UTC

Would you define creation as the conservation of conscious preference and action?

2026-06-17 12:23:01 UTC

- reply

How are you quantifying the energy permanently sunk into Bitcoin? I assume that you are talking about failed hashes?

2026-06-17 03:01:18 UTC

- reply

What does it mean to timelock Kelvin in eternity?
#Bitcoin
#nevent1q…md4w

2026-06-17 02:45:25 UTC

- reply

FYI, Nick and I would love to schedule a talk with you for some time after this weekend. Can you shoot us an email?

2026-06-15 23:08:57 UTC

- reply

It’s in the paper, but my guess was that at some point the universe would begin to nominally “run out” of Kelvin due to Bitcoin, but this isn’t actually a problem IMO. I see the cumulative temperature as the Kelvin irreversibly committed to conserve the information of the chain. So long as the chain persists, that Kelvin is out of circulation appended to the information in a specific block of time. Think of it as a thermodynamic transaction of Kelvin that “backs” each block.
Mathematically it will continue to climb but at a depressed rate. We don’t know how the fee market will change with difficulty and what will be written in the chain, but we expect every block to accumulate a finite amount more. I guess we’d have to play around with difficulty, Tblock and pBlock to see how that number could change and what market behavior it would require.
We still don’t know what a true fee market even looks like yet, anything is on the table.
I don’t think it’s a constant since it will grow each block, I could be wrong here. Regardless 4.22% of the universe in 17 years is crazy 😳
It’s mathematically equivalent to ~ 887,500 btc of 21M gone from circulation.

2026-06-15 14:56:30 UTC

- reply

Things are starting to look good! The numbers roughly check out to what I would mentally expect. I hope to find some time to review the code this week after make the changes. I’ll be away again this weekend 😵‍💫
Cumulative Nonce Temperature is back below 1 😏. The postulate has not been invalidated yet! With the screenshot provided we are sitting at approximately 4.2% of all Kelvin is Bitcoin.
Said differently, Bitcoin is 4.2% of the universe’s active thermodynamic substrate.
Looks like we are seeing the thermodynamics of a universe play out in real time from Genesis. Curious how the latter half of the chain will look once the data is put in.
Nice work! We need to get more eyes on this to review!

2026-06-13 11:18:22 UTC

- reply

Think of UTXOs as grouped “bits” of value (satoshis) existing in different points in time. What this visualization is showing is the relationship between those bits of value as they move through history and become recombined into new states.
Every UTXO on the input side of this coinjoin could have originated in a completely different block of time, with its own unique causal history. Yet on the output side, those histories are merged into a shared temporal event, the block. New UTXOs are created, and every output now carries a relationship to the same block of time and the same transaction history that produced them.
What is being mapped here is the relationship between time (block height) and memory (key space). Independent histories become linked through a common state transition and emerge with a shared causal ancestry.
This is entanglement properly defined within a verifiable system, as an observable relationship between conserved states across time. Independent histories become correlated through a shared measurement event, and that relationship remains permanently auditable within the ledger.
Bitcoin allows us to see the geometry of conservation directly. The UTXOs are the conserved states of value. The transaction is the shared measurement. The block is the moment (measurement) in time that binds them together into immutable history for eternity of the chain. They are forever linked, verifiably.

2026-06-13 01:36:24 UTC

- reply

I’d argue nothing was money until Bitcoin. Just approximations of money.
That means only Bitcoin can natively define money by proof of work. Work is measured in joules, not fiat.

2026-06-13 01:33:24 UTC

- reply

#Entanglement
#nevent1q…tj2u

2026-06-13 01:26:29 UTC

- reply

How many blocks of proof is it going to take for people to pay attention to the gravity?
#nevent1q…dtx6

2026-06-12 23:27:32 UTC

- reply

I can’t give you full detail atm but block energy is calcd wrong.
pBlock= total transacted in block (inc coinbase)/supply
pBlock is how you calc the Shannon entropy H and Ublock
Tblock=coinbase (fee+subsidy)/supply
Ep= Planck Energy= 1.9561×10^9 joules (constant input wrong)
(D*2^32) is Boltzmann (nonce) side where Tnonce comes from.
Ublock=Unonce, solve for block first the use that energy to solve for Tnonce.
You don’t need Boltzmann’s constant at all (remove it)

2026-06-12 18:41:38 UTC

- reply

What python file should I review?

2026-06-12 14:26:36 UTC

- reply

Hey @nprofile…yg9e I am starting to review the code in the gitlab, mostly looking at the python. I have some comments/concerns. What would be the best way for me to deliver these? I am very inexperienced with reviewing code so I don’t know how to structure my comments for you. I took a python course in 2022 but I have forgotten a lot of it 😅
I am finding some issues in the block energy calcs. Might be best to hold off on working until I can finish review. There are some structural changes that will affect the whole set.

2026-06-12 11:32:05 UTC

- reply

Is this where the current codebase is stored?

2026-06-12 11:11:14 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is an open source and decentralized experiment that occurs approximately every 10 minutes. Energy is transformed into information which becomes an immutable quantized block of time. It’s a computational universe without question.
I am adamant we are viewing the exterior of a universe from Genesis. You’re spot on about inflation, I think is a 1:1 map. Theres a lot of geometry and perspective to talk about here to map a timechain to cosmology (timespace). I see the art section on your website too…. Many things to discuss in the future.
A quantized ledger built from blocks of time is the only mathematical system that can openly demonstrate and verify conservation of energy. The double spend problem must be solved for.
We see Bitcoin from Genesis, t=0 to t=present, we see all 2.1 quadrillion bits (sats) of value. We see every state preserved in full fidelity. If you were to ask for a “gods eye” view or universal observer view of a universe, the perspective would be Bitcoin. The substrate must be informational if you are not composed of its substrate of time.
Im hoping we can peak the interest of Stephen Wolfram, Federico Faggin, Melvin Vopson and other physicists who are studying computational physics to come observe and work on the physics of Bitcoin. We need more help. We need other people to verify the equations, adjust them if necessary and add to the pool of knowledge. This is an entirely new domain of knowledge to mine. They need to know Bitcoin is the answer they are looking for.
There’s only a small group of us Bitcoiners who are even trying to push the needle forwards here in this domain. I don’t think people realize that this knowledge is hyperbitcoinization when properly understood.Proof of work is measure in joules. Bitcoin cannot be grounded any other way.
Thank you some much for doing this, I really appreciate your work🧡

2026-06-12 01:01:29 UTC

- reply

Centralized quantum computing is already dead in the water because of Bitcoin. Most people havent realized it yet. The powers that be are tying to break Bitcoin through changing the code for “Q-Day”.
Bitcoin demonstrates that the conservation of energy cannot be upheld without a quantized tick, a block of time. You can verify this for yourself.
If time is quantized and discrete at the Planck scale, then superposition must also be discrete at the Planck scale and exist between the fundamental ticks of time. Each tick/block is a measurement event that demands a classical state of reference for conservation to hold. Bitcoin is the proof. The double spend problem is the physics problem of measurement and conservation.
Without continuous superposition and smooth unitary evolution, the entire industry has a problem called Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is Q-Day.

2026-06-11 23:32:31 UTC

The primal wallet doesn’t work like 20-30% of the time, it’s definitely unreliable.
What else are people using these days?

2026-06-11 23:30:34 UTC

- reply

So just thinking about this now, it seems more like a misinterpretation on my end regarding the theoretical meaning. Since the number of possible blocks is unbounded (block height trends to infinity), it’s logical that the cumulative sum of the relative measure could exceed 1. There’s no rule that says it must stay under 1, it was more or less a hypothesis.
I am going to have a discussion with Nick about this…this was one of the things we had questions over prior too and considered withholding from the original paper. Now that you have pointed out this issue, it makes sense to revisit what the nonce temperature is.
My gut says don’t get hung up on the cumulative nonce temperature and it’s best to just remove it for now and focus elsewhere. The measure of temperature is still correct, but I think looking at it cumulatively is not the way. Just record the nonce temperature per block for now.
Block temperature will trend to the fees/supply has block height approaches 6,930,000 (end of subsidy). What is the nonce temperature trending to? Perhaps its behavior will change when the fee market picks up?

2026-06-11 12:19:48 UTC

- reply

It’s my anniversary with my wife this weekend; and I’ll be tied up all next weekend too.
I’m thinking I might find some time tomorrow to review the code base. Maybe mid-week next week if not. Have to balance the fiat job too 😵‍💫
Once I can see how the equations are being used then I think we can really make some headway on all of this.

2026-06-11 12:11:54 UTC

- reply

So with regards to cumulative nonce temperature, my postulate is that like Bitcoin’s 21M, Kelvin is bounded by Planck Temp, think of it as the Planck “supply”.
So we can measure time a few different ways with Bitcoin, the accumulation of energy, the accumulation of information and the accumulation of Kelvin. Each block is finite addition. The nonce temperature is supposed to represent Kelvin that is irreversibly committed to block. So long as the block persists, the Kelvin remains pegged to that block of time. As we sum up the chain of accumulated blocks of Kelvin, the sum of the relative temperature should never exceed 1 and if we measure it in Kelvin, the sum should never exceed Planck Temperature (think the sum of all Bitcoin should never exceed 21M).
This is a postulate, if I am wrong, I will need to reconsider the meaning of the nonce temperature. It looks like from your graph it does exceed 1, so I will have to speak with Nick to see what he thinks here. It might not make sense to do the cumulative.
I wish there were more people here to discuss the physicsc, mechanics and equations with.
“Mempool sampled at 100 rate” can you explain what you mean by this?

2026-06-11 00:57:35 UTC

- reply

Nonce temperature also appears to be wrong.
At Genesis pBlock =1, ln(1)=0, so UBlock=0 despite Tblock=1.
When we plug in 0 for Unonce, the only valid temperature to produce 0 is 0 since difficulty is 1.
This is interesting nonce temp=0, block temp=1 at genesis. Bitcoin starts its time at a 0 energy state. This logically checks, no POW was done for genesis block since it was premined. No time had accumulated yet a Block 0 (Genesis). It’s defining the anchor for all future state transformations.
https://blossom.primal.net/46e17121d16662e9d5b3e317406ce85d371855eee589d107065eb496017b66d7.jpg