Today I came across an idea that seemed to suggest that the 21 million supply cap was like the speed of light "c" i.e. it could not change.
However, the same article compared the 21 million supply cap to the definition of the meter that is recognized internationally.
I think this is a conflation of ideas.
Firstly, c, the speed of light, cannot change whether you measure it is meters or your own feet. If the measurement system changes, then it changes. But ideally, c itself does not change.
How do we know this?
We defined a consistent measurement system and voila, c turned out constant.
If we redefine our consistent measurement system say to Hal Finney's feet (it would be a worthy tribute), then voila, c remains constant.
Unlike temperature C (Celsius) which will keep changing.

Ok.
So is Bitcoin's 21 million supply cap c or C?
Objectively speaking it is more like the meter. Not c, but also not C. Closer to c but not quite. More an intersubjective than an objective.
The approximately 500 million or so Bitcoiners out there all agree that it should not change because there is no reason to mess with it when we're just starting to build on it. Just like scientists have all agreed to keep the definition of the meter the same , moreless, since 1791.
But I like hypotheticals so let's say scientists realize that to do better physics, the meter needs to be redefined to be twice its current length.
Maybe because our brains compute that better, who knows.
Or perhaps they come up with another unit that means "two-meters" which becomes so common it overshadows the original meter.
What's wrong with that?

Same with Bitcoin.
Hypothetical is if in the far future our great grandkids believe 21 million isn't nice enough and instead they prefer to deal with a binary figure so they go for 16,777,216 as the supply cap instead of 21 million for some weird reason related to science and money and human brains.
Are ya'll goimg to rise from the dead and tell them 'Noooo. That's wrong !'
Yeah. You won't.
Thankfully.

Should it change?
Bitcoin is currently 17 years old so the only people opining for a change will be fiat maxis who want to sow confusion. Our high time preference brothers and sisters who feel the need to eat every marshmallow put before them. Ofc we're not listening to them. We, the low time preference gurus, run this joint of hard money.
So circa 2026, no. It shouldn't change. But if I write speculative fiction dreaming of a change, that should not trigger true maxis. Otherwise that's like somebody feeling a rush to go try weed coz they saw somebody in a movie smoke something.
Ofc, given we are surrounded by HTP (high time preference) fiat maxis, it can be hard to know the good guys from the bad. But a good rule of thumb I guess is remain LTP. See what someone does 3 months later. Don't use a few posts or stories anywhere to think they're fiat maxis.
Maybe they're just more creative.
Should we punish creativity?

This brings me to the third point.
What should change?
I think Vitalik Buterin scammed us when he called Ethereum a Universal Money Computer when he very clearly knew it wouldn't do that.
Ok. He wanted to hype some VCs and the crypto space seems to have filled the niche that Bitcoin's hardcore-ness refused to fill i.e. "innovation fun".
Only problem is if you're doing this while running on fiat currency debt the house is going to crash.
And it does.
Over and over.
But like gambling, this "easy money" storyline is so irresistible so people keep lining up. And the more fiat fiats, the worse their addictions.
Somewhere in the golden currency past, gambling was done to enjoy playing with probability and uncertainty in chance games.
Now, people use it the way some use drugs. They abuse the simple thrill and delude themselves to think they are the special one who won't be rugged.

So how should Bitcoin reward creativity without failing to punish scamminess?
I think for starters, Bitcoin maxis should get a little outside their comfort zone where they think the fiat game will end tomorrow, so the only think they should do is stack sats.
This monochrome idea is sad to me who needs to find a way to dance within this burning-house party. i dont want to be old with my coins having missed out so much on creating good stuff within the scam days that i have lost the spirit of exploration.
If anybody is simply twiddling their coins and waiting for the dollar to wind up its time, i think they'll end up more frustrated than Michael Saylor.

See, one can see Saylor as having lost the plot, or have faith that he is winding up the coin.
Yes, reposting shitcoin ads isnt the way and is too risky even if the plan is to stack more sats.
Just like nobody should eat shit and live like the most miserable slave simply to save money, coz this will make you sick and well, shitty, nobody should sell shit to make the world a better place.
Saylor has let us down here.
But that's the thing.
It is impossible to fully hate Saylor if one is a true maxi. We can have our boundaries, but full on cancelation is for woke fiat. Weak.

I personally think the attitude we have as Bitcoiners will matter a lot in the coming days even more than our puritanical stance on Bitcoin as c where we should also sense the C and feel the heat of the times.
Bitcoin in fact isn't like the meter. Its such a strange animal similar in a way to philosophy so that even as we agree on the tenets, we feel differently on what to prioritize.
But certainly understanding each one's background (Vitalik was a dev. Devs will dev. It can be understood) goes a long way. And having the right vision of the future in both win and lose scenarios and seeing Bitcoin win, is a sign of true understanding.
For example, whoever gave up on Bitcoin because they suddenly heard about Quantum computers showed a lack of deep understanding. They hadn't gone deep into either rabbit hole. I was lucky to begin with the Quantum computing one so that i see the news as fud at the highest level. The technology is neat though and im excited to see it.
Weird? Wanting Quantum to exist?
Well, its like not wanting the devil to exist. A good philosophy of being acknowledges the angels and the devils in the details. And chooses optimism still.

Is Bitcoin like the speed of light c? No. But it's close. Its more like language. And language must be spoken and if a few slangs show up and they're cool, don't bore us with the pure dictionary stuff man. Live and let live.
For what i have found in Bitcoin, above all else, above all the protocol rules and the maxi ethic, is the freedom to build on as I spend uncensorable money. To feel myself make something relevant for anybody.
Of course, i dont scam. Never will. So help me God. Amen.