AJ2884 on Nostr: While your "fiat physics" comment tempts me to open whole other can's of worms, I'm ...
While your "fiat physics" comment tempts me to open whole other can's of worms, I'm going to skip that, and instead assume that your writing is meant as literal engineering/science rather than philosophy, analogy, or metaphor since you've spoken about units and equations and see where that, point by point, gets me 🙂
"The “heat loss” energy loss..." I'm assuming that, in a Saylor-esque sort of way, you're thinking of bitcoin as stored energy, and so a transaction is functionally sending energy, and as a result, the fee is energy lost by the user to the miner. That said, since entropy is typically more about comparing interchangeable macro and micro state count ratios (or order, which is a poorly defined word so not very useful), I don't see how that relates to entropy other than that the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which many assume to be an absolute of nature, but a few think is a quirk of our perspective) results in a relationship between the flow of energy and changes in order (which as previously pointed out, is a fairly meaningless word). So following that logic, removing a fee, energy, from a transaction, could, but wouldn't necessarily lower entropy. But again, I don't know what entropy means in this case. In signal processing entropy is used to described how data dense a chunk of data is, like, how efficiently the bits are being used (could the same amount of data be compressed into fewer bits and then losslessly be recovered), but I don't think that's what you mean. So, I feel like you're using it as a piece of technical jargon that's meant to relate a fee with the energy it took to generate the fee, but I see no reason to place any significance on that energy amount, fee size, or ratio between the two.
"A UTXO is suspended..." I'd argue that this line misrepresents the causal flow as it leaves out some important parts. Removing a fee isn't what causes the transition, it's creating, signing, and transmitting a transaction, and the fee subtraction and state change is the consequence. But to the degree that those points aren't relevant, I see your point.
"... pure signal of transactional “temperature” entropy..." I don't honestly know what you mean by any of those words, or the phrase as a whole. I'm assuming that you're getting at something related to how, as you approach 100% of bitcoin being mined, you approach having the difference in utxo inputs and outputs for a block being equal to the total fees paid, but I don't know what signal that relates to, how that's a temp other than that it could be a ratio of something and that's how you seem to be using that word, and again, I don't understand your use of the word entropy.
"Entropy must be energy..." Why? Is this saying that, again, in a Saylor-esque sort of way, the fee represents energy? Also, saying that two things are inverses, in my opinion, assumes that we're speaking metaphorically, which I don't think you're doing, things are better defined than I'd argue that they are, or it's a somewhat meaningless statement.
"0.5 is equilibrium. ", I don't know if I want to agree to this, it somehow feels like there could be a relevant edge case or hinting at something deeper, and given the level of uncertainty that I'm feeling... 🙂
"So long as fees are >0..." There's no definition of entropy for which I know what it means to resolve it. To me, saying that energy is entering the system seems like, either there's still a block reward and fees are irrelevant since utxos are utxos, or as long as miners are mining energy's being put in and fees are just one more output from a transaction so they're not relevant to whether or not energy's being put in.
"Entropy creation (heat via miners)..." To me, that line reads like a somewhat arbitrary philosophical statement which isn't bad, but also isn't what I think you mean for it to be taken as. And again, if it's built on some of what Saylor says, whether I agree with it or not, I understand it. Also, given that this seems to be a conclusion, I suspect that if I better understood the first statement, I'd say similar things about that.
"Temperature is the proportionality..." This reads like philosophy that I'm not familiar with. While colloquially, proportions tend to add to one, I don't know why that's temp, what order is (you said it's the inverse of the entropy which might be a fee, but again, I don't know what that means), what chaos is in this context, how they equal the whole picture, and while you've related order to energy in ways that I don't understand, I don't see why chaos is energy. I'm assuming that it's that if they're opposites, different portions of the same part, then they have to have the same units, but this feels like making a philosophical statement, assuming it's literal truth, and then doing dimensional analysis based math with it.
"Chaos creates order and order..." I feel like I just finished reading something written by one of the many christian enlightenment philosophers for whom, seemingly, the only thing more important to them than doing very good work was arguing the correct point 🙂 So my present thought is that there are more connections here than I initially thought, that some points and relationships could be better articulated, and that in the end, this is a work of philosophy as much as anything else, and perhaps there are things that you consider self evidently true or obvious conclusions, that won't be so for all others.
"The “heat loss” energy loss..." I'm assuming that, in a Saylor-esque sort of way, you're thinking of bitcoin as stored energy, and so a transaction is functionally sending energy, and as a result, the fee is energy lost by the user to the miner. That said, since entropy is typically more about comparing interchangeable macro and micro state count ratios (or order, which is a poorly defined word so not very useful), I don't see how that relates to entropy other than that the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which many assume to be an absolute of nature, but a few think is a quirk of our perspective) results in a relationship between the flow of energy and changes in order (which as previously pointed out, is a fairly meaningless word). So following that logic, removing a fee, energy, from a transaction, could, but wouldn't necessarily lower entropy. But again, I don't know what entropy means in this case. In signal processing entropy is used to described how data dense a chunk of data is, like, how efficiently the bits are being used (could the same amount of data be compressed into fewer bits and then losslessly be recovered), but I don't think that's what you mean. So, I feel like you're using it as a piece of technical jargon that's meant to relate a fee with the energy it took to generate the fee, but I see no reason to place any significance on that energy amount, fee size, or ratio between the two.
"A UTXO is suspended..." I'd argue that this line misrepresents the causal flow as it leaves out some important parts. Removing a fee isn't what causes the transition, it's creating, signing, and transmitting a transaction, and the fee subtraction and state change is the consequence. But to the degree that those points aren't relevant, I see your point.
"... pure signal of transactional “temperature” entropy..." I don't honestly know what you mean by any of those words, or the phrase as a whole. I'm assuming that you're getting at something related to how, as you approach 100% of bitcoin being mined, you approach having the difference in utxo inputs and outputs for a block being equal to the total fees paid, but I don't know what signal that relates to, how that's a temp other than that it could be a ratio of something and that's how you seem to be using that word, and again, I don't understand your use of the word entropy.
"Entropy must be energy..." Why? Is this saying that, again, in a Saylor-esque sort of way, the fee represents energy? Also, saying that two things are inverses, in my opinion, assumes that we're speaking metaphorically, which I don't think you're doing, things are better defined than I'd argue that they are, or it's a somewhat meaningless statement.
"0.5 is equilibrium. ", I don't know if I want to agree to this, it somehow feels like there could be a relevant edge case or hinting at something deeper, and given the level of uncertainty that I'm feeling... 🙂
"So long as fees are >0..." There's no definition of entropy for which I know what it means to resolve it. To me, saying that energy is entering the system seems like, either there's still a block reward and fees are irrelevant since utxos are utxos, or as long as miners are mining energy's being put in and fees are just one more output from a transaction so they're not relevant to whether or not energy's being put in.
"Entropy creation (heat via miners)..." To me, that line reads like a somewhat arbitrary philosophical statement which isn't bad, but also isn't what I think you mean for it to be taken as. And again, if it's built on some of what Saylor says, whether I agree with it or not, I understand it. Also, given that this seems to be a conclusion, I suspect that if I better understood the first statement, I'd say similar things about that.
"Temperature is the proportionality..." This reads like philosophy that I'm not familiar with. While colloquially, proportions tend to add to one, I don't know why that's temp, what order is (you said it's the inverse of the entropy which might be a fee, but again, I don't know what that means), what chaos is in this context, how they equal the whole picture, and while you've related order to energy in ways that I don't understand, I don't see why chaos is energy. I'm assuming that it's that if they're opposites, different portions of the same part, then they have to have the same units, but this feels like making a philosophical statement, assuming it's literal truth, and then doing dimensional analysis based math with it.
"Chaos creates order and order..." I feel like I just finished reading something written by one of the many christian enlightenment philosophers for whom, seemingly, the only thing more important to them than doing very good work was arguing the correct point 🙂 So my present thought is that there are more connections here than I initially thought, that some points and relationships could be better articulated, and that in the end, this is a work of philosophy as much as anything else, and perhaps there are things that you consider self evidently true or obvious conclusions, that won't be so for all others.