Perhaps this is precisely where we need to distinguish between the distribution of independent validators and the distribution of aggregate hashing power.

Having many individual miners is important. But how effectively can they coordinate independently, and how much aggregate hashrate can they actually mobilise outside established pools?

Node density, economic participation and distributed hashing power need to reinforce one another. Otherwise, decentralization risks becoming a property we assume rather than one we continuously reproduce.

@Saifedean Ammous I agree that Bitcoin needs to appreciate enormously to work as money. An interesting question, though: when we speak of Bitcoin's cash balances growing, are we measuring monetary adoption through purchasing power against existing monetary systems, or through the economic relationships emerging within Bitcoin itself?

As Giovanni Santostasi argues in The Physics of Bitcoin, value is a relational property, and Bitcoin is best understood as a network good.

Its appreciation can certainly encourage accumulation. But what ensures that accumulated value translates into distributed monetary adoption rather than simply greater concentration of monetary balances?

Bitcoin's potential as both a medium of exchange and a store of value is currently constrained by diverging criteria of adoption, draining valuable energy from where it matters most: Layer 1.

Combined with insufficient peer-to-peer adoption through self-custody and independent validation, this risks hollowing out the network.

@Jack K Legitimate challenge. Changing the proof-of-work algorithm is not merely changing mining software. It changes a foundational component of the network's security model.

@Tauri | Bitcoin (XBT) Interesting distinction between the heaviest chain and the heaviest valid chain.

But what determines the economic coordination behind the proof of work in the first place?

Consensus rules determine which blocks nodes accept. Yet the distribution of economic activity, mining infrastructure and aggregate hashing power determines which valid chain can actually sustain itself.

Could we be focusing so heavily on defining the rules that we're overlooking the economic conditions required to preserve decentralization in practice?

How? How do we take care that Bitcoin stays money? Genuine question.

@Johnny, our exchange has made me put the underlying idea into a more concrete framework. Here is a short discussion paper I drafted:

https://kompass-frei.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Discussion-Paper_The-Measure-of-Value.pdf

It outlines how such an arrangement might work: an initial commitment by the publisher, a deliberate allocation of the first commercial risk, the author's retained intellectual property, and a different basis for remuneration on subsequent copies.
I've deliberately left quantities and prices open, since those should definitely emerge from the publisher's own assessment of the opportunity.
I'm sharing it here because I think the proposal deserves to be considered beyond this particular book. It might even be an interesting starting point for rethinking the economic relationship between authors and publishers. It keeps the BTC denomination for subsequent acquisitions as a substantive possibility–as the unit of account actually– which is more interesting than simply accepting Bitcoin at checkout.

I haven't settled on a quantity, @Johnny. But perhaps we could look at an initial commitment of 300 copies as an illustration.
In fact, I wouldn't expect any payment or royalties for those first copies. The idea would be for the publisher to finance production and distribution, retain the proceeds from their sale, and assume the associated commercial risk.
That would give the publisher an opportunity to recover its investment and establish the book in the market, while the author contributes the intellectual work without claiming an immediate financial return.
The quantity should ultimately reflect the publisher's own assessment of the opportunity and the economics of making it happen.

@Johnny That's what makes the initial commitment meaningful.
Before committing to a quantity, the publisher needs to form its own assessment of the book's prospects, its potential audience and its ability to distribute it successfully.
Once acquired, the copies belong to the purchaser, along with the commercial risk attached to them. There is no buyback obligation on the author's side.
In other words, we are not trying to eliminate risk; we are trying to allocate responsibility in accordance with each party's contribution and capacity.

That's an interesting point, @Johnny. I agree that how and when royalties are settled matters indeed.
What I had proposed to the publisher/distributor was something slightly different: an upfront commitment to acquire a defined number of copies at a fixed price per book.
The quantity and unit price would be agreed in advance. The purchaser would then assume the commercial risk and retain the proceeds from reselling those copies, while the author would retain the intellectual property and publishing rights, as well as the freedom to sell other copies and pursue other editions or formats.
In this arrangement, the publisher's return would depend both on the value it initially attributes to the book — reflected in the price it is willing to pay — and on the value it can subsequently create through distribution and sales.
This way, rather than dividing royalties from a common pool, each party commits to a distinct contribution and participates in the value created.
I find that a more interesting starting point than deciding on a royalty percentage. What do you think?

Thanks for pointing me toward Konsensus. I did reach out to the team and have since had the opportunity to explore their approach.

I appreciate the ethos behind what you're building. My interest was also in exploring whether the publication itself could put some of the book's ideas into practice — not simply using Bitcoin as a means of payment, but rethinking the economic relationship between author and publisher.

That may go beyond your current model, but I think it's an interesting conversation to have. Thanks again for the pointer.