@Jack K @The Bitcoin Lens @PlebNick Here's our calculations on bytes conservation. Fee market divergence has affected quite a few blocks. Also we should review what happened on: * Block 483329 - first identity breakdown and phantom/free bytes * Block 515076 - huge spike in identity breakdown and phantom/free bytes So far we've processed 562k blocks. Energy per raw MB and surface mass density don't seem to be affected but we yet to process rest of the chain.

Ok, SegWit discount is unethical as it doesn’t price all bytes equally. Is that what people would agree on?

SegWit allowed to apply 22 tons of mass equivalent over Bitcoin chain. Read:

The 0.75 MB Gap — ARTEL 21

@Jack K @The Bitcoin Lens @rambler @LaserEyesPsy @Tauri | BIP-110 #bitcoin #segwit #physics

The problem with SegWit is 0.75 MB Gap. Effect is the effect. Write a 1 MB inscription, pay for 0.25 MB, externalize the difference to every node on Earth, forever. You can clearly see the effect of this on the graph. More bytes per satoshi committed since 2017. Read:

The 0.75 MB Gap — ARTEL 21

"The gap. The writer paid for 0.25 MB. The network stored 1.00 MB. The 0.75 MB in between is uncompensated. It is not paid for by the writer's fee. It is not paid for by the miner's revenue. It is not priced anywhere in the consensus rules, the fee market, the wallet UI, or the block explorer. It is paid for, in storage and bandwidth and validation cost, by every full node operator who has ever run Bitcoin Core, present and future, in perpetuity." @Jack K @Tauri | BIP-110 @Michael Dunworth @BitcoinIsFuture #bitcoin #bip110 #segwit

Future knows View quoted note →