I think we have to begin one layer deeper. SegWit is a transaction serialization upgrade, but it also changed Bitcoin’s economics of blockspace thru inflation and discounting. It is a soft fork in name only; every modern fully validating node must download and validate witness data under today’s consensus rules. The block Bitcoin commits is therefore larger than the original 1 MB design. Pretending the effective memory surface did not change because we renamed it “block weight” obscures what actually happened. Blocksize increase and discounting have nothing to do with transaction malleability or Lightning. My concern is that they were coupled to an economic restructuring of Bitcoin’s finite memory and distorted the entire conserved relationships the system was supposed to preserve. If the fee market exists to discover the price of finite blockspace, why should the protocol define different prices for different classes of permanently committed transactions? 1 bit = 1 bit regardless of tx type. 1 satoshi now purchases different amounts of historical memory, a burden even fully validating node takes, depending on the protocol’s classification of those bits. The market is no longer pricing physical blockspace alone; it is pricing protocol abstractions. We depegged the bits from the coin. We broke the logic of how coins become bits through a conserved physical process. If we are going to defend witness discount, I think it should be grounded in an objective conservation principle defined by the physics of information. What conserved physical quantity is the 4:1 weighting measuring? Why is that ratio correct? Why not 10:1? Why not 50:1? Why not free? Why not 0.5:1? Bitcoin’s purpose is to allow the markets to discover price of finite work, finite memory, and finite satoshis while the protocol conserves invariant relationships. Once the protocol begins assigning different prices to different classes of permanently committed bits, we’ve moved that price discovery into protocol policy. It’s a distortion to the core economics Satoshi defined. If every witness bit ultimately becomes part of Bitcoin’s permanent historical record, what objective physical principle justifies assigning it a different economic price than other permanently committed bits? Until that question is answered from the physics of information rather than engineering preference, we cannot even defend the BIP logically. We should not think of witness discount as simply another protocol “lever” to adjust. It’s not. I cannot morally defend the change to begin with. I cannot defend the implicit blocksize increase. I cannot defend the arbitrary weighting. Bitcoin no longer conserves the constant relationship of sats:bits:blocks, thus it should be seen as a violation of property rights. I am working on building the proof that changing blocksize or arbitrary sat weighting of identical physical bits is an equivalent violation of conservation law, akin to changing 21M. Im not going to pretend the blocksize didn’t change >1MB. All bits carry same physical cost to write (not read). The only sane conservative thing to do is to return Bitcoin to the constants defined by Satoshi. This isn’t an upgrade nor a change to Bitcoin, it’s what Satoshi gave us originally. No discounting Segwit bits + non-Segwit bits <=1MB 1 sat = 1 sat if and only if 1 bit = 1 bit