"Bitcoin is a complete thermodynamic system whose time does not compose us""Bitcoin is a complete thermodynamic system whose time does not compose us"
When you find yourself making statements like this it is time to take take your hands off the keyboard and reevaluate what you are doing.
If you go on to say:
In this Timespace ontology, time is primary and computable; space, fields, and trajectories become derivative descriptions of how committed states relate to each other across ticks of the ledger. Physics, as we know it, becomes a special case of a more general time-first model.
You should probably go for a walk.
I found both these rather unlikely statements in a recent paper called "Bitcoin: The Architecture of Time: The Thermodynamic and Mathematical Object of Time, Entropy, and Measurement."
I did not read this paper which is only available in the pdf format. I can assure you that the ontology of physics is not going to get remade if we cannot even step outside the make-it-like-paper-but-on-my-screen mindset spawned by Adobe in 1993. Make a website people, or even a freaking ebook, just people don't make me load another pdf.
Anyhow, I did read the abstract and I listened to this interview Preston Pysh did with the authors.
"Bitcoin reveals the boundary conditions physics has always assumed but could never access within its own empirical constraints.""Bitcoin reveals the boundary conditions physics has always assumed but could never access within its own empirical constraints."
As best as I can summarize, it sounds like the authors are making the case that Bitcoin is a unique way to measure time and therefore quantum physics is fiat.
I'm not being fair (no one is ever fair, dyor), but I'm frustrated because they extend their argument to make the claim that quantum computing can't exist (or at least it can't be a threat to elliptic curve encryption) -- which is just absurd. Quantum might not be a threat, but there are no guarantees.
Here's an example from their interview with Preston Pysh:
"And so very simply put: what is superposition? Or decoherence in a discrete time model? Bitcoin gives us that lens of what superposition actually is. It gives us an understanding of what what physicists are actually observing when they call superposition -- and that would be the mempool. It's a preconfigured state of possibility, but it doesn't actually exist until it's measured."
I might be willing to grant that Bitcoin is an interesting analogy for thinking about the questions posed by quantum physics, but, my friends, it is not going to fix our understanding of the universe.
We're trolls and punks, not a newWe're trolls and punks, not a new
One of the things I most enjoy about Bitcoin is the culture: we're a bunch of meme-toting edgelords with delusions of grandeur that occasionally come true. This is lovely because even though we have plans to conquer the world, Bitcoiners have traditionally avoided the trap of taking themselves too seriously.
Such being our nature, I enjoy a blithe "Bitcoin fixes this" or an obnoxious "Have fun staying poor!" as much as the next guy (perhaps much more than the next guy). Nonetheless, it's important for us to remember that we're just playing with magic internet money here -- it's a glorified computer game.
I have no interest in convincing established disciplines that Bitcoin is relevant to their field. I want Bitcoin so that anyone can route around such entrenched powers to do whatever it is they want to do.
My friends, it is enough to fix the money. We do not need to fix the physics, nor time, nor epistemology.
I'm firmly convinced that things like this music video have more relevance for humanity than endeavors to rewrite physics in the shape of Bitcoin.
https://tpb.party/torrent/82082451/Lord_of_the_Flies_(TV_Mini_Series_2026)_720p_WEB-DL_HEVC_x265_BONE
What is Stacker News?
It is a social media platform intentionally created to enable a P2P V4V BTC denominated community.
Originally Stacker News (SN) custodyed sats on behalf of participants but the threat of government regulatory prosecution on the pretext of money transmitter forced a move away from the custody of sats by the platform to the platform enabling participants to send sats via their wallets.
To achieve this participants need to attach wallets to both send and receive sats.
Where participants do not or cannot attach LN wallets transactions will often default to Cowboy Credits.
This change was a compromise forced by the threat of government prosecution.
The difficulty of attaching both sending and receiving wallets is moderate- it takes some effort and newbie or non tech people may struggle with it, but most competent Bitcoiners can succeed in attaching wallets and thus enabling sats denominated P2P transactions.
But a number of Stackers have chosen not to attach wallets- in particular sending wallets which enable you to send sats into the SN community.
Very few have attached just a sending wallet- many have attach just a receiving wallet.
Those who only attach a receiving wallet can receive sats from others but cannot send sats into the community. They may feel that as content providers they have no need or obligation to send sats into and within the SN community. I disagree.
Where these receive but not send (horse but no gun) Stackers proclaim to be Bitcoiners but refuse to enable a sending wallet they are demonstrably hypocrits. They claim they want to build and grow the BTC LN MoE network but they cannot be bothered contributing toward that growth by attaching a sending wallet and demonstrating they are not just talking, but are also walking and supporting a sats denominated platform.
If we do not use the LN wherever and whenever we can it will not grow and develop.
Some claim it is too hard to attach wallets- its too hard on their self custody nodes or wallets- this just highlights how much work the LN still needs before it is capable of anything approaching 100% reliable MoE capability.
But the best way to grow and strengthen the LN is it use it – despite its remaining flaws and glitches.
When wallets are supported by people using them they receives transaction fees and can develop liquidity and systems further.
When LN wallets are not used the LN decays- it does not have the usage and fees income to grow.
So when self proclaimed advocates for BTC and LN refuse to attach wallets (especially sending wallets) I see hypocrit.
I will continue to see hypocrit until and unless someone can explain why I should not.
Calling me a Nazi, trolling and making fun of me crudely seeking to avoid the issues I raise will not stop me from asking why are you claiming to be a Bitcoiner but refusing to attach wallets and use the LN here where we can help it grow.
Now some are deliberately concealing their wallet status, as if this is about a right to privacy.
Concealing your wallet status means nobody else can verify whether or not you are serious about using BTC LN, or whether you are just an all talk no walk hypocrit.
Do not trust- verify.
What about this fundamental principle do they not understand?
And then they talk about 'content' being more important than whether or not you have attached wallets - in this context the intentional lack of attached wallets undermines your credibility as your actions do not match your words.
Your submitted content may be great, but you as someone claiming to be a serious Bitcoiner are undermining your credibility and the credibility of your content by being a hypocrit.
Your content, is tainted by your verifiable hypocrisy.
SNs needs both good content providers and those who pay for that content if it is succeed.
I am more in the latter group than the former but both are required overall or the model does not work.
So as a net contributor of sats and thus a net consumer of content I object where content providers refuse to engage in the P2P V4V ethos by refusing to attach both sending and receiving wallets and I will both withhold my contribution of sats and sometimes downvote in response.
V4V needs to work reciprocally or it will not work at all.
The content providers need net sats contributors/content consumers who send sats into the platform, or the entire platform fails.