Absolutely surreal

Bitcoin depending on your perspective.

I agree with him on this though. I cringe every time I see someone refer to "what satoshi envisioned". I think it is entirely un-bitcoin-esque to refer to satoshi for anything other than the merit of his brilliance. As a bitcoiner, I take pride in being able to think from a first principles point of view. Satoshi is not first principles, but his idea was indeed founded from a deep understanding of solving a problem from a first principles approach. And that is why, referring to the white paper, or something satoshi has said, is practically irrelevant, except as an worthy opinion in a debate of many opinions. We must think and build and solve from a first principles point of view.

Yeah, I’m sure.

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.

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.

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?

Wrong

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