Bitcoin depending on your perspective.

Still a huge majority of chains of work was great under Satoshis original vision before we got Segwit. What does it mean to step away from physics of the chain?

We should learn from his way of thinking, not blindly follow his thoughts. Referring to "satoshis original vision" is misguided. We shouldn't care at all about "satoshis original vision". We should think for ourselves.

Yeah, I’m sure.

Agree, still the question about physics remains. Satoshi did’t give us answer but neither we asked the questions and answered it ourselves

Elaborate what you mean by physics of the chain?

If first principles don't lead you to fork then have fun with those covenants.

Bitcoin defines relations of satoshis and bits as expressed in UTXO set and entire ledger which is around 1TB now. We have PoW which is used to expend energy and get Bitcoin blocks with nonce and hashes, we also get heat of miners as exhaust. This process binds Bitcoin to our physical reality. There are a few constants: 21M Bitcoin, Block itself, 1MB (we changed it unknowingly) blocksize, elliptic curve, PoW algorithm. If you change one of those you alter how energy is conserved within our physical reality. We changed block structure and blocksize and got more spam. What does it mean to change PoW? What does it mean to change elliptic curve? Answer will be revealed in time but we should probably ask questions first. If any constants change, what does it mean to have ledger with history using different regimes and measures? How far are we from fiat if we keep changing the rules? How does it change relation between joules of work and sats/bits by such work. Change one change everything. We better properly understand side effects before committing actions. My 2 sats.

The white paper is the first-principles document. It is the blueprint: the design, the purpose, and the assumptions behind Bitcoin. Some of those assumptions turned out to be wrong; most did not. The assumptions that were wrong nevertheless helped shape Bitcoin into what it is today, and we can debate whether that is good or bad. But the white paper still provides the rationale and context behind a pile of code that can otherwise be changed infinitely to do whatever its maintainers or users want it to do. Without the context provided by the paper, the code alone tells us very little about what Bitcoin was actually designed to be.

Why not to start with new Genesis then? Why fork?

I think best efforts are made to "properly understand side effects before committing actions". We just havn't been smart enough it seems. How we deal with that decides whether bitcoin survives its infancy or not

Wow, I strongly disagree with you on this. The white paper is by definition not "first principles". At all. And I think reconsidering this might possibly lead you to reconsider other opinions as well, just based on how flawed I think this perspective is. The IDEA of bitcoin seems to be founded deeply from first principles. The white paper is an explanation of how this idea can be constructed and brought to life. The actual code implementations then finally take the guidelines of the whitepaper to implement the idea in code-form, thus bringing it into our reality in terms of actually being able to use it. When we then later decide to deviate from the whitepaper, if those deviations improve on project, where improvement is based on the first principles of the societal problems bitcoin seeks to solve, then those changes are (probably) good. When the changes then show to have had negative side effects that outweigh the benefits, we must conclude that we were idiots when we implemented that change. But the white paper in itself is not first principles. Human rights are first principles. Laws of physics are first principles. Nature is first principles. Bitcoin whitepaper is an idea. Thinking about

I feel that you did not read what I wrote.

The fork continues all the way back to the genesis block. That’s why it’s Bitcoin and not some other altcoin printed out into existence.

Is the plan to remine the whole chain under Blake2b?

Maybe im asking silly questions, is there like FAQ in what blake2b will do?

Technically, it’s not Bitcoin if I can’t run Satoshi’s code and sync to the new chain. You can claim all of the historical bits and the UTXO set up to the height of the fork, but logically you are no longer conserving the same work. If the proof-of-work algorithm changes, the function and difficulty will have been altered by fiat (decree). This becomes obvious when you calculate the block energy of the chain in joules. At the fork, the thermodynamic history will deviate because the system is no longer conserving the same proof of work against the invariant Satoshi defined at Genesis. The POW change will alter the Boltzmann entropy but keep the Shannon entropy via the utxo set. You can point back to Satoshi’s Genesis and call it Bitcoin, but ancestry is not identity here. The proof is in the computation of the work. Follow the joules through the fork and you will see exactly where conservation ends and fiat begins. You don’t need to trust me, you can verify this for yourself. “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.” — 1 Corinthians 10:23

This is a GREAT point, Jack. 🤙

No, the chain starts form the last BIP110 block.

Not yet AFIK, but you can join the Knots Discord channel and ask if you’re interested.

So happy to fork off from this.

🙏 thank you! Just trying to extend the conversation to get more people thinking. It’s necessary ground a proof of work change in the literal work, since that is what a satoshi mathematically conserves as “money”.

Feels great

One reason to fork is that, when core-bitcoin break by CSAM arbitrary data or whatever, people will realize that they already have dormant blake-coins. That will help adoption.

You’re not running Satoshi’s code tho. There was a hardfork in 2013, remember?

Also one in 2010. Can you sync to the 2010 version of Bitcoin? Does this mean modern day Bitcoin is an altcoin to Bitcoin in 2010?

every protocol change is a fork. some are hard (deprecation) some are soft (addition). segwit is soft, and witness discount is not a consensus rule, it's a transaction selection rule. a node can ignore the discount and prioritize transactions that pay the most.

🫡 correct. You simply don’t need to accept any Segwit bits on your node. Or you can further filter said bits and remain in consensus with Layer 0 Bitcoin (SegWit data is Layer 1).

Where is this CSAM stored? is it stored in nonsegwit (Layer 0 Bitcoin) or is it stored in witness (Layer 1 Segwit)? If it’s stored in Layer 0 Blockspace (nonwitness) then Blake-fork still would inherit the same data unless the fork is also temporal in height to a block state where this information is not yet written. If it exists in segwit, you simply don’t need to store segwit bits. You can just fork Segwit without breaking Layer 0 Bitcoin consensus and you can solve the issue without hardforking the chain via POW change.

I actually agree with you. We are not running Satoshi’s original code, and the 2010/2013 forks are proof. Code depreciates obviously. Bugs are discovered, implementations change, and sometimes forks are necessary to preserve the system the code was intended to express. What I’m trying to articulate is that “Satoshi’s code” is also Satoshi’s invariant logic. Bitcoin is a logic space defined by certain fixed references established at its inception. Fixing an implementation failure so that those invariants can continue to function is fundamentally different from deliberately changing one of the invariants themselves. Proof of work is the example. Bitcoin requires an immovable Genesis and a consistent measure of work relative to Genesis in order to construct a conserved chain of time and state. SHA-256 defines that measurement space. If SHA-256 were broken, changing it might become a question of preserving Bitcoin through necessity. SHA-256 isn’t broken. I don’t believe it will ever break, thus a true invariant measure. Changing the PoW function by choice because of a fork and difficulty wall changes what “work” itself means relative to the bits and satoshis already conserved in the chain. It’s fiat imposed to the logic space. So it’s not literally “have we ever forked Satoshi’s code?” Obviously we have. Are we forking to preserve the original logic through depreciation and failure, or are we using the ability to fork to change the invariant logic itself? BIP110 doesn’t need a POW change, it needs to deal with the difficulty wall honestly with honest work. I’m trying to treat “Satoshi’s code” as the original expression of an invariant logical space, not frozen depreciated code. That distinction matters.

sovereignty of the receiver of funds in bitcoin is right there baked into the very title of the paper - peer to peer. not client-server. the distinction is not rocket science. all nodes of the UTXO graph must remain sovereign. covenants break this invariant. taproot *already* allows a kludgy form of covenant, it's not been used much because it's more awkward. but it's a violation of the guarantees of a PEER TO PEER electronic cash system. any fork of bitcoin that breaks this, breaks the fundamental architectural principle of the original design, and thus cannot be called bitcoin, or considered to be a bitcoin. the mental gymnastics of people who are cheering for core's clear ongoing effort to break the peer to peer invariant of the architecture of bitcoin is absolutely mind boggling. and it should be pointed out that PEER TO PEER is exactly what central banking systems ARE NOT. they are client server. server is the central bank, commercial banks are the clients. and they propagate that downstream, the clients ownership of their deposits is NOT sovereign, and that's to stop "bank runs" which exposes the fundamental violation of human rights that the entire system exists to perpetuate. it's not optional, it's not irrelevant, and anyone who accepts breaking the contract that bitcoin is always peer based and not role based, just doesn't deserve bitcoin, and they are happily watching it be stepwise mutated into a central bank controlled by blockstream. most shitcoins are precisely this - a travesty of the central bank-client bank-customer architecture. the central bank gets rich, pays off the client banks enough to make it worth being in the conspiracy, and the customer is robbed.

Good point

Sounds like we can cook something up with this

Afaik its not hardfork unless you change invariants

Wrong

Time will tell

The OP_RETURN (max ~100kB). Not that anyone would use it for efficient storage, but it would be a liability to nodes.