Jackkluz on Nostr: Firstly I would like to state that there is great folly in comparing Bitcoin to the ...

Firstly I would like to state that there is great folly in comparing Bitcoin to the system it is replacing (fiat). Looking backwards at fiat distorts reality. I think we need to revisit the white paper and understand what Satoshi meant by “a peer to peer electronic cash system” from the perspective of physics.

By deconstructing the word choice Satoshi used, you arrive something along the lines of a “1 to 1 (equal to equal) energy cash system”. We know that 1 joule = 1 joule so this places us in a different domain than comparing to fiat where $1≠$1 with regards to time. The measure of value is quite important after all. We define mining by energy consumption (joules) so why not value?

If energy (joules) is the true peg to satoshis, how do we get there? Well entropy, temperature and Boltzmann is the very obvious link. So I would first ask, how do we define the temperature of a Bitcoin Block? The physical process in which computational energy is crystallized into immutable information. We are in the domain of energy transformations.

Looking at Boltzmann we have a dimensionality problem of how we relate Joules per Kelvin to Satoshis. Bitcoin reveals something fundamentally overlooked in physics; the relativity of Temperature defined by a known maximum supply of energy units. This would imply that the work done by Kelvin, Planck and Boltzmann is incomplete and needs adjustment (Bitcoin fixes quantum mechanics). Anything that touches temperature has an incorrect perspective and needs to be reexamined; all of our prior assumptions are wrong. Bitcoin is energy, thermodynamics proves this undeniably.

So, how does nature/universe maintain the conservation of energy without a peer to peer energy network? How do energy transformations maintain CoE?

Without going very indepth in the physics here, the existence of the universe and our ability to observe it reveals that we exist in an epoch in which a terminal subsidy of energy units (Kelvin) has been reached and our existence is solely sustained by transactional nature. Our existence is proof that Bitcoin can and will sustain itself solely fees by fees. This first assumption you made is fundamentally wrong and can be disproven with physics. Therefore we must really reconsider any change we want to make to the protocol.

If your physics is wrong, how can you even understand what you are looking at or comparing to? Are you certain we even understand what a Kelvin is? Are you certain peer to peer energy networks are not fundamental to reality and existence? Are you sure we even fully understand bitcoin and the changes we wish to make to it?

As far as moving the decimal, it’s relatively meaningless but it would be a way to adjust the perception of numbers we are looking at. But fiat has no place in this discussion. Some food for thought.

#Bitcoin #Physics