If we give for true the religious role of Jesus of Nazareth, then we could state He is godsent. But as we can observe, He didn't already solve any poverty, nor did He wipe out evil from humankind, nor did He provide infinite food and water to anyone, and other drastic solutions easy to come up with by a simple mind.

For the same principle, we cannot state what is godsent and what is not. Bitcoin, however, promises to solve the greatest issue of human society, which is money. If one studies the principles of Bitcoin, and one is temerarious enough to imagine beyond common thinking, one quickly comes to important conclusions about humans.

Everything that enters the realm of relativity, and therefore time, must come in respect of the laws that define the universal balance within this realm, regardless of its nature, and so adapt efficiently, in the best way possible to such conditions. If even God had decided to pursue this path with Jesus, complying with the equilibrium of time, do you think Bitcoin would come here and mess with this balance, or instead would it distribute its growth throughout time?

The growth of things across time and space is the exploration of their forms in these observable dimensions. The closer these forms are to absolute compliance with the universal laws and designs, which men have used to call "divine", the closer to universal beauty. Universal beauty also means the absence of entropy. The growth of Bitcoin is very close to being a form of universal beauty, even though not perfect, but if zoomed out enough, one can see that entropy fades out soon, especially sooner than everything else. There is no other entity in the history of humankind with such pureness of growth.

We do not know the complete form of things when they are under the conditions of time, this is what makes us human. Faith, however, comes from what makes us men, and having faith builds a bridge to our manly nature, which sees that absolute form. Faith is in fact not belief, but trust in that part of ourselves that sees absoluteness and knows regardless of conditions. The pursuit of knowledge, on the other hand, is what makes us beautifully human, and takes our human mind closer to an absolute mind, even though, as humans, we will never reach it.

At present state, Bitcoin seems imperfect. However, the design that constitutes its fundamental functioning is very close to the design of laws that govern the dynamics of the material universe. It is the closest entity we have created that resembles the universe in being a relative infinity system that is closed and sum zero. It is the human invention that is closest ever to the marvel of the universe. We can understand the universe better by studying Bitcoin, and we can understand Bitcoin better by studying the universe.

By no means. I'm indeed an admirer of both Bitcoin and Jesus for how close they are to perfection and freedom. The mentioning of Jesus should not be perceived as a way to make Bitcoin a religion, nor Jesus is mentioned in a religious way, but rather to compare Bitcoin to something we know as a work of stupendous faith. Furthermore, I'm speaking of Jesus and Bitcoin as examples of peak artistry and feat, where the protagonist has walked on the most efficient path of creation, or very close to it. The universe is the entity whose walking is constantly on the path of perfect creation, being it Creation itself. Here is why Bitcoin is very close to being universal. Indeed, bitcoin is very close to how the universe works.

As the post says, it is the closest human work so far to one free of imperfections and relativity, second to Jesus. I'm aware of the known imperfections of Bitcoin. I've tried to address them from a different perspective in other posts.

Bitcoin is an artwork of universal laws.

It seems that once it started, no one was going to stop it. The more it persists, the less one can stop it. The laws that bitcoin represents so marvelously, thus the design that is the fundament of its existence, transcends the conditions of time, so that any events related to it now depend on bitcoin and not the other way around. There is, in other words, no event that has more influence on bitcoin, than bitcoin itself. One day this will all be cleared among the common human thinking. For now, we say:

Bitcoin may be the human work closest to something divine, in other words, free from imperfections and relativity, after the work of Jesus Of Nazareth.

This is the destiny of those who work by faith and for things higher than times and people: to work outside of others’ understanding, sometimes one’s own understanding. To work knowing that no one fully understands now, possibly at the right moment in the future, and sometimes never. Thus regarding the work Satoshi have done, being human, they probably do not comprehend it fully in nature, nor do we do now, possibly in the future, maybe never. Surely the work of Jesus Of Nazareth, in the guise of Christ, one will never fully understand.

This is the great feat of human beings, to pursue something not by belief but by faith. And a great gift granted to us: that in doing the right thing we need not to know the full truth, but by virtue of knowledge and wisdom be close to it, and by virtue of faith have it in our heart.

This may be incorrect. I've verified myself that the scale being logarithmic or regular does not influence the number of bars displayed in the POC indicator, therefore every bar displays the same range of price.

For what regards the possibility that the relative condition of the exchange used for charting may influence the BTC graph, thanks for the tip, very logical and informative. I confirm that the whole issue depends mainly on this.

Sometimes one may miss simple things and needs to be set back in track by others, like you did with me.

Image: https://ibb.co/99zVQpR


If the Point Of Control (POC) is the price level where the most trading has occurred

how is it possible that the chart indicates this level to be at 10k range, when BTC was in 2019-2020?

Isn't trading volume much higher in 2021, for example in the 30-40k price range?

You may not see what I see, in the same way, I do not see what you do see. On my end, I've tried to explain it, backing it with reasons, so that I could make others understand the idea, and so that I myself could also understand it better. Can you please do the same, and be more specific?

When you say: "zero upsides, plenty of downsides"; can you develop this opinion, so that I can either give credit if flawless, or I can clarify some points if needed?

One solution, hopefully, the one, is a blockchain that adapts mining difficulty and transaction fee to transaction size, thereby following the dynamics of time dilation according to which for different masses come different perceptions of time. In Bitcoin terms, this would translate to each transaction being associated with its proper confirmation time according to its size in BTC units and based on a central reference.

The main purpose of this solution would be to scale the network of transactions in Bitcoin in the same way the Universe scales the network of interactions between bodies of different masses.

To solve any of Bitcoin's problems we must attune this monetary system to the laws that define how energy behaves in the Universe. We should compare the two systems, understand them by comparison, and apply the rules of the Universe to Bitcoin. And we should also understand that Bitcoin is outstanding and efficient the way it is thanks to Satoshi having based their system on the mechanics of the Universe, either consciously or unconsciously.

To solve Bitcoin's scalability issue, we need to learn how the Universe has solved it for itself. As it seems, It is doing it by associating each plane of observation of change/movement, and therefore, of time, with its proper dilation of the universal timeline. Each dilation has its pulse frequency, that is the rate at which data updates (block creation time), and so a unique, although related to every other dilation, display of relevant data. Then it is needed to identify the agent of this association, of which the base principle is energy’s interaction with spacetime.

In Bitcoin, this would mean creating a multi-plane blockchain that associates masses of monetary energy to proper confirmation times while simultaneously having and constituting a universal chain of reference.

It is similar to what we see when charting a financial asset across multiple timeframes. A financial asset has a single history, yet this history is subdivided into multiple planes of observation by changing the “pulse frequency”, that is the frequency at which a unit of time is being created. Candlesticks, the single temporal units, are blocks; a candle creation is the block creation; a timeframe (plane) is the confirmation time or block creation time; the candle chain in each timeframe is the different translation of the original chain, the asset’s financial history, as the blockchain for each confirmation time (pulse frequency) would be the different translation of the original blockchain, Bitcoin’s history.

The different planes of the blockchain, which would regard different confirmation times, would exist to scale transactions to their proper frequency according to their size. In other words, everyday transactions would be confirmed much more frequently than large transactions, proportionally according to correct mathematical manners. To have different confirmation times we should have different planes of mining difficulty. The grand feat of mind would then be knowing how to distribute the total hash rate across all planes and how to interconnect them while simultaneously representing a universal blockchain.

Blocks must have the same universal block size. In other words, they must appear one across all chains (but differ in the data they represent - just like single units of time on different planes of perception). This is fundamental concerning special relativity, as it seems such a universally fixed capacity is what permits each special observation to be the same if considered in an isolated way. That is, the perception of time is the same for every observer, but not when we put these perceptions to each other.

I’m open to discussing this solution with anyone interested in further development.

I'm not a beginner.


I don't understand where this assumption comes from, but my statements refer to a proposition, not to the current state of the Bitcoin protocol. Anyway, such a proposition does not mean to supersede the current relationship between total hash rate and mining difficulty. It aims to flank it to guarantee scalability through space and time by making mining difficulty self-adjustable along both dimensions of nature. The difficulty adjustment is currently present and self-sustainable only along particle spacetime, that is, on the mass of total computational power (bitcoin's body). This automatic adjustment, or self-sustainability, is also necessary per waveform nature, regarding the frequency of transactions. For Bitcoin to be perfect, it must be a system where the right freedom distributes among all planes of perception (usage) of its monetary energy, with equal respect to all participants in the system. Satoshi has done an outstanding job in scaling Bitcoin across one nature, but it is also necessary to do it through the other.


Just change any temporal units with their respective translation into number of blocks, referencing 1 block = 10m.

I've difficulty understanding your use of words, so I cannot fully reply. I also don't want to engage in discussions conducted with hostility.

That is not what I'm trying to say. Please read other responses.

This looks like a GPT generated response. I appreciate using technology to provide neutral and respectful answers.

---

The lightning network is a layer two solution. I have a feeling that this is avoiding solving a problem by covering it with sand. Or better say, covering it with layers. In the end, if the core of the onion is rotten, the whole onion will be.

A multi-layer blockchain is different. We're not operating on top of it but directly into it; everything will be there in the first place. The genesis will not be the one submerged by everything else but the one most clear and seen as the universal reference.

There seems to be a wrong assumption. Chains should not be two. Rather, should be well thought out how to distribute transactions among the various chains, of which number appears uncertain so far in the thought process. It would be, as per intuition, impractical to assign a chain for each transaction size, for example, 0.80 BTC, 5 BTC, or 1.000053 BTC, as it would be an astronomically large number.


I'm not sure I've got your affirmations. I think they are based on the imposed assumption upon which you're developing your reasoning. Please note that for non-genesis chains, mining difficulty would adjust to transaction size and base itself on a computational power of reference, that is given by the genesis chain, the central chain of reference. The computational power (Pn) to confirm transactions of a n quantity of bitcoin, would be: Pn= P₀ * log₁₀n, where P₀ is the reference power for 10 mins.

More powerful miners would have no interest in verifying smaller transactions, as fees could depend on transaction size. The protocol could be assigning miners to their respective chains based on mining power, but it is uncertain if this could open the system to attacks as people could exploit the assignment phase. A secure solution would be to make sure that the point of best profitability for a miner is exactly where he is supposed to be based on his mining power.

Furthermore, there is no direct mention of the number of chains to be two. With the phrase "then increasing mining difficulty for transaction size > 1 BTC, and decreasing it for transaction size < 1 BTC, in a correct mathematical manner (common logarithm)", I describe a situation in which a given transaction size would be associated to its environment of difficulty. "In a correct mathematical manner" is a way to regard the relationship between transaction size and time;

for example,

1 BTC = 10 m (reference, genesis); 0.1 BTC = 1 m;  0.01 BTC = 0.1 m; and so on.

Inversely,

10 BTC = 100 m ; 100 BTC = 1,000 m; and so on.

I apologize for being ambiguous.


Transactions could still be quickened by paying higher fees, as it is now. For those big transactions that pay bigger fees to make it quicker, mining difficulty would be reduced accordingly to the entity of the fee, thus on how much the user is willing to pay. For example, 10 times quicker, 10 times more costly. These transactions would be assigned to the quicker chain thereafter. For this purpose, it seems important that the transaction size would not coincide with the data size.




Please note that this idea refers to solving the scalability problems of Bitcoin. It gives a possibility to Bitcoin to process small transactions at a faster pace, at the cost, or truly, at the proper implication of transacting bigger quantities in more time. This dynamic seems in harmony with how different quantities of mass influence the perception of time, and movement, in the universe; that is, with more mass comes more time dilation (time runs slower), and with less mass comes less time dilation (time runs faster). So, in parallel: the 10 BTC mass would see the 0.1 BTC mass transacting/moving in faster manners, i.e. at a faster pulse, while the 0.1 BTC mass would see the 10 BTC mass transacting/moving in slower manners, i.e. at a slower pulse. The pulse is the "refresh rate" of the temporal/movement perception, or in Bitcoin's context, the rate of block creation.




Such a problem is solved by having a reference computational power, which is the one related to the genesis chain. Non-genesis chains have computational power requirements that are based on the reference requirements, and according to their position, which is in turn according to the transaction size. In this way, the chains wouldn't be independent, but actually all dependent on the genesis chain, which is the one setting the reference. The reference power seems to be supposed by the total hash rate, so a change in that would signify a change in every computational power requirement across the multichain.

I agree that such a system could create problems of centralization for unpopulated chains and be more prone to attacks and for these reasons needs careful consideration. The truly difficult task would be to know how to determine this reference for computational power and how to distribute the transaction sizes among the multi-layer blockchain while preserving the strengths of Bitcoin, most importantly, the all-is-one property. In other words, while having multiple chains, or better saying, different ramifications or versions of the same chain, this remains one single entity, verifiable by everyone not by means of others’ copy but one’s copy. This would be the one task requiring great feats of mind and creativity.


This would be all a matter of the relativity of each chain. Temporal perception would be proportionate to their transaction size and computational power requirements. For example, by following previous reasonings: 1 hash of 60 minutes desired solve time would be related to transactions of 6 BTC; such chain would have its own computational power requirements, which would be 6 times the reference power. A user could still wait a few confirms, and for an attacker to attack the chain would need to adjust his computational power to the chain itself. The perception would be the same for every chain: the only things changing would be the spatial and temporal conditions.

How does this give a satisfying response to the questions?

Please be focused on the questions and their core, and provide clear answers that scrutinize the idea and disclose theoretical and practical pros and cons. As usual in this forum, responses are provided on what you believe is right and wrong and are mainly constituted of cultist rhetoric on the perfectness of Bitcoin.

Please provide answers with complete neutrality and possibly strive for openness of mind and heart.

Is it possible to scale Bitcoin by making transaction size proportional to the time needed to verify a transaction?

In other words, have Bitcoin distribute transactions on a multi-layer blockchain, with 10 min as the reference unit of time (bitcoin pulse) corresponding to the reference unit of monetary energy (1 BTC), thus having a reference unit of mining difficulty, then increasing mining difficulty for transaction size > 1 BTC, and decreasing it for transaction size < 1 BTC, in a correct mathematical manner (common logarithm). The result would be having multiple blockchains operating on top of each other and having a mother blockchain at the center, the Genesis blockchain.

What issues would appear to be solved, and what to be created?

The system already includes this equation.
User ownership is relative; its duration is indefinite.
It is fundamental to clarify the definition of ownership.
There is a difference between relative ownership and absolute ownership.
The Bitcoin system is the absolute owner of its monetary energy.
There is a distinction between indefinite and infinite.
The blockchain is the temporal dimension of the Bitcoin system.
User ownership of wallets is temporary by the definition of relative ownership.



While it may seem otherwise, this equation is already present in the current system. You hold your crypto as your capability or decision to keep it perpetuates. Both of these are relative, by definition of human nature, and, by definition of relativity, subject to conditions.

We can state: a Bitcoin user holds crypto for only X, where X is indefinite. Being indefinite, X could also perpetuate infinitely. While X can be potentially infinite, it still regards a temporal limitation, X itself.

The main misunderstanding that appears to drive the conversation is upon the meaning of ownership, specifically, user ownership.

Ownership is the capacity to exercise control over something. In the Bitcoin system, user ownership is relative, as it is subject to conditions, time, and system ownership.

Users cannot bring monetary energy outside of the system. This is because of Bitcoin’s fixed supply, which is enforced by the blockchain. The blockchain’s purpose is to ensure that all valid transactions happen within the Bitcoin system and that the law of conservation of energy is respected. Users cannot transact coins outside of the system. All valid transactions must happen within the blockchain.

The blockchain prevents monetary energy to escape or join the system. It prevents users to transact coins outside of it and prevents double spending, thus any introduction of monetary energy without proof of work and beyond the fixed supply. What is of the Bitcoin system remains in it. What is not of the Bitcoin system does not remain.

Users are just using the monetary energy in this system. The enforcement of the constant and original supply and the law of conservation of energy makes Bitcoin a closed system. Since the Bitcoin system enforces ultimate control, it represents the absolute owner of its coins. In this sense, the monetary energy is centralized within the system. If the system is a neutral entity, we can define the system as decentralized. In other words, the system is the central authority, but it becomes decentralized as this authority is neutral towards all system participants and system rules. More specifically, the central authority is the machine, the tribunal, and even more specifically, it is the code itself, the constitution; however, if the code is not perfectly neutral, the system is not fully decentralized because it is not perfectly balanced. Much like artificial intelligence cannot be neutral until the training database is absolute and all-comprehensive. The code must respond to the law of conservation of energy and all other laws that consent perfect equilibrium and neutrality.

An absolute owner has ultimate, unconditioned, and limitless control over something.

Users are users, and their ownership is relative. They join the Bitcoin system and have freedom over its monetary energy, provided that this freedom is perpetually within the limits of the closed system. If users try to enforce relative ownership outside the Bitcoin system, the blockchain prevents it by exercising system ownership.

Relative ownership is limited control over something. User ownership in the Bitcoin system seems among the best forms of relative ownership, as it can perpetuate infinitely and gives the most transactional freedom. Such is thanks to the blockchain being unlimited in the number of blocks, thus infinitely explorable. Yet, monetary energy is still circumscribed within the blockchain and can only circulate inside it. We can visualize this considering the difference between indefinite and infinite, which we can call relative infinity (delimited) and absolute infinity (endless).

Even if it may seem that Bitcoin users are ultimate owners of some quantity of monetary energy, they are just relative owners. They are, in fact, users. They agree to use a system and its features but are not absolute owners. It means they are owners of a quantity of bitcoin for only X, where X is indefinite.

The possibility to hold monetary energy indefinitely does not make a user the absolute owner. Such an owner has independent and unconditioned control. The user ownership is dependent and conditioned on many factors, one of these being the possibility of losing access to the wallet; most importantly, dependent on the fact that if users want to use Bitcoin, they must do it within its closed system. The Bitcoin system does not allow monetary energy to escape the system because of the law of conservation of energy, which the constant supply pursues, while the blockchain enforces.

There is only one absolute owner in the Bitcoin system: the system itself. The system is the blockchain. The blockchain is the ultimate owner of monetary energy in the system. In other words, a user can hold bitcoins indefinitely, but the ultimate destiny of his coins is inside the blockchain. This destiny is the limit of this relative infinity that is the blockchain. Such is why user ownership is relative and temporary, and system ownership is absolute.

There is a substantial difference between being able to explore time indefinitely and existing outside of time, therefore being absolute. Coins can explore the temporal dimension of the Bitcoin system indefinitely, as the blockchain length is unlimited, but do not escape it. The temporal dimension of the Bitcoin system is the blockchain.

There is a similarity between the blockchain and time. In this sense, the Bitcoin system is a closed system similar to and within the original one, the Universe, and thus subject to its laws. It is fundamental that Bitcoin respects the universal laws that define the behaviors of energy in balanced systems, especially material energy, to which money is similar.

We can refer to the blockchain as an unlimited ledger of transactions/movements of monetary energy, of which sum is constant. We can also define the blockchain as a relative infinity system, that is, a system that is infinitely extendable but provided with a boundary. There is so the possibility to store infinite transactions within the blockchain [as long as there is effort (computational power)], which makes it unlimited inwardly; the boundary is the fixed supply of monetary energy, or constant sum, which entails that none can escape nor enter the system.

In this sense, the Bitcoin system already provides your equation by definition of relative ownership. By the same definition, it is also possible to address the phrase: “renting a temporary box on the blockchain to store your wealth”. The ownership of a wallet is relative because it is still subject to conditions and time. The wallet itself is not temporary, but the ownership of the user upon this wallet is. A user is therefore renting, or more suitably saying, owning a wallet indefinitely by definition of relative ownership, that is, until conditions like losing access to it or giving it up.

All valid bitcoin transactions are stored in the blockchain. Transactions outside of the blockchain are to be considered invalid. On-chain transactions are valid because the blockchain is responsible for the constant supply of monetary energy. The blockchain verifies and preserves the law of conservation of energy. The blockchain is the absolute owner of bitcoin energy.

Legend of parallelisms:
Coins = monetary energy, matter; transactions = movements; blocks = points in time; blockchain = time; wallets = points in space; set of possible wallets = space? ( finite number - maximum extent);
active wallets = bodies (points in space containing matter); set of active wallets = population;

As general definitions, we can state:

In the material system, an observer takes relative possession of a point in space and a quantity of matter to perform movements at points in time.
In the bitcoin system, a user takes relative possession of a wallet and a quantity of bitcoin to perform transactions at blocks in the blockchain.

This design seems in harmony with the universal laws on closed systems, except for one thing: the recycling of energy to preserve system balance. The Bitcoin system appears to require a form of recycling for inaccessible/lost monetary energy. There is a disorder regarding active wallets, which should represent wallets containing energy and in use (control) by relative owners. Currently, the network considers inaccessible and lost wallets permanently active (under the ownership of previous users) even though coins can never return to the system. Such a body of monetary energy would be without a user in control and have no chance of being recycled.






The monetary energy of the Bitcoin system is subdivided into neutral fungible units. Human-based rights are irrelevant before the universal laws of perfectly balanced closed systems. This right, whereas it involves “destroying permanently”, refers to forms of energy. This right does not refer to energy itself, which is neutral and can’t be destroyed, just transformed. Coins in the Bitcoin system represent neutral monetary energy.

Ownership cessation doesn’t necessarily refer to destroying coins permanently; rather permanently losing access and control. Abandoning and destroying would take on the same meaning.

While one can still “destroy" the monetary energy under his relative ownership, which in Bitcoin would mean losing coins, the system should not sacrifice neutral energy for human rights if these can’t be defined properly, completely, and without partiality and bias. If we could establish unbiased human rights, they would likely include the right to an economy based on a neutral and balanced monetary system. This right would be more important than any right based on an unreasonable attachment to money.






Bitcoin is indeed about the inviolable right of permanent ownership, but by the system, and the constant supply of monetary energy represents this permanent ownership. The core of Bitcoin involves a closed system where the first law of thermodynamics is pursued and perfectly respected. Moreover, if such an inviolable right of permanent ownership would regard user ownership, a user should be unable to perform ownership cessation.
Permanent user ownership is impossible by the previously stated definition of relative ownership. It is essential to recognize that permanent loss of access or control to monetary energy means loss of ownership. To consider oneself still the owner of a quantity that has been permanently lost, and so, upon which the user has no control anymore, is a sign of biased perspectives.

In addition, we should not consider people leaving Bitcoin as a solution, especially if we are so passionately mentioning Bitcoin's core principles. We agree that Bitcoin is more secure as more people join the network. Furthermore, we can also agree, that we should first try to solve and clarify any possible issue in Bitcoin to the best of our abilities instead of considering ways to escape as soon as the situation becomes uncomfortable. Satoshi started the fire of the idea; our purpose as a network is to make it live and possibly refine it. We should not expect Satoshi to be a supreme being that has given us something perfect and irrefutable.






The purpose of Bitcoin is to be the global reserve currency and the most representative store of wealth. Bitcoin is a currency and commodity. It is idealized as an underlying representative of value and a primary medium for monetary transactions. As for now, other cryptocurrencies are securities.

More specifically, bitcoin should represent absolute wealth preservation, given that its monetary energy never decays in absolute value ( 1 BTC = 1/21M of total energy, always). This would make bitcoin the general store of wealth and the primary digital commodity.






Your observation is correct. It seems that the energy consumed for lost coins would return into the system per indirect means, as it would be transformed as an appreciation of the circulating bitcoins. It is unclear whether the conservation per indirect means is valid when focusing on monetary equilibrium. Intuitively, we should exclude the indirect here and focus on respecting the law directly.

Regarding permanently lost energy, please note that this refers to the monetary energy in the system. Thus we are referring to lost coins. This idea considers the similarity between money and energy. Such is the underlying similarity upon which the whole recycling idea stands. It also considers the universality of the law of conservation of energy. This law states that no energy is lost in a closed system that is perfectly balanced and self-sustainable. A permanent loss of coins in Bitcoin would make the system vulnerable to imbalance and eventually collapse. In a system with constant supply, imbalances would be any appreciation of coins due to factors outside of population change (because, in supply/demand, the supply is constant; with Bitcoin as the global reserve currency, price changes should only be due to population change).  It is also obvious that if coins can be lost permanently, supply is not constant but decreasing over time. It is not primarily necessary to know how this system will collapse: we must first recognize that the system is not satisfying the law.






There appear to be some inconsistencies in your argument. If Bitcoin is about the permanent ownership of the user, how can it also give the right to cease ownership? It is crucial to clarify that ownership is the capacity to have potency and control over something. As one loses this capacity, like when losing access irreversibly, ownership is also lost. Furthermore, we should also clarify and remind that user ownership is and always will be relative.







The opportunity to have a say about the functioning of Bitcoin and propose new ideas comes from the open-source nature, as you have said. It is good to discuss Bitcoin in a way that respects ideas and people. The consensus of the majority is there to help biased beings reach the least amount of bias possible. This is another great part of Satoshi's idea.

Collectivity is the closest thing to neutrality if the individuals are biased. Therefore, the collective consensus is the safest and rightest decision among non-neutral individuals. Such is because the larger the number of components in the collectivity, the more the subdivisions of this single entity/set, and the closer the result to the neutral mean, thus the point of balance.

It is unnecessary to attack people who express themselves. No threat, no reason to worry: let people share their ideas; the collectivity is there to reach a consensus. In this light, never shut the spark of an individual. People should express themselves, fuel their fire, and share it with others. No one has the right to suppress the fire of others with presumption and superiority. Furthermore, the beginner often sees things that a master in complexity has missed along the way and would never get unless he makes himself a beginner again; for example, the capacity to rely on pure intuition. We should embrace praising creativity and possibly assist people to higher levels of knowledge with fraternity and goodwill.

In the case bitcoin will always have a sufficient number of satoshis, that's even better. Recycling would refer specifically to preserving the original fixed supply and comply with the law of conservation of energy.



If an idea is good, it doesn't need to convince, but to present itself at the right moment. This idea isn't directed to create a different path; there is no interest in gains, apart from the good of the system and the network.

A system where energy is permanently lost is destined to collapse. A recycling system that is completely neutral and autonomous could significantly contribute to ensuring the self-sustainability of Bitcoin over potentially infinite time.

The authentication procedure is the recovery phrase. Inheritance would be passed down the line through the recovery phrase regardless of a system of recycling for lost coins.

The verification of activity, or "confirmation of aliveness", is any sender transaction. Wallet activity would happen regardless of the recycling system.

Extreme holders, or people who have lost access to their wallets, have 131 years to perform a simple active transaction to declare the wallets as alive. This system ensures that the law of conservation of energy is upheld and no energy/money/effort is permanently lost.
 
To explain this using a human metaphor, both breathing and transacting are forms of exchange with a system. Each breath in the human body resets the death clock, and if breathing ceases for a certain period, brain death can occur, leading to the body's recycling back into the system. Bitcoin wallets are more efficient than human bodies and can remain without transactions for longer. However, just like human bodies, wallets should also be able to die, especially when money is primarily for the benefit of the entire system, rather than the specific single owner.

The argument lacks reasonableness. The recycling processes would be executed by the code based on a collective consensus, without any centralized authority. The only centralized entity would be the neutral machine, if one were to be identified. Therefore, there would be no biased authority responsible for recycling. The protocol would aim at preserving the fixed supply and ensuring balance in accordance with the law of conservation of energy over an indefinite period. If one were to consider this centralized, then the whole protocol would be, regardless of the specific features.

Regarding the rest of your arguments, I abstain from responding, since I've already addressed them previously.

Regarding Satoshi: rejecting new ideas on the basis of a cult-like mentality is dangerous for the system over time. Furthermore, while Satoshi is certainly superior to you in matter of creativity, mind, and especially reading capability, It is advisable that you avoid suggesting that anything spoken by them is imperishable and incorruptible.