How To Steal Bitcoin: Stick A Fork In It (It's Done)
My final thoughts on the Core/Knots Bitcoin fork…
I've been missing since 2015. 🌴🌊🌅
#Photo | #Video | #Web | #Drone | #Underwater | #3D | #AI
My final thoughts on the Core/Knots Bitcoin fork…
Common narratives surrounding Bitcoin forks posit an immediate, guaranteed opportunity for a 100% arbitrage by selling one fork's coins for the other. Many proponents assert that when a chain splits, the resulting two assets possess parity in value. While the quantity of satoshis on each fork of the chain indeed holds a 1:1 relationship, the "100% arbitrage" assumption is fundamentally flawed; it mistakes theoretical value symmetry for realized market equilibrium. The empirical evidence dictates a far more nuanced reality; minority forks invariably debut with an immediate, significant negative deviation, rendering the assumed "100% arbitrage" opportunity a statistical improbability.
Bitcoin's base layer was designed as a minimal, thermodynamically efficient ledger for value transfer. Over the past decade, a sequence of protocol changes and narrative shifts has progressively loaded the chain with non-payment data and institutional dependency. This report applies Landauer's principle, the thermodynamic cost of information, to Bitcoin's governance history, identifying a pattern of incremental complexity addition that threatens the protocol's core function as censorship-resistant money. The pattern is not hypothetical. It is documented in protocol commit histories, DOJ-released Epstein files, ETF prospectus language, and the public statements of the actors involved. The August 2026 BIP-110 activation window represents the first organized attempt to reverse this trajectory, and the institutional response to it reveals which actors benefit from the accumulated complexity.