Research Articles

Analysis, debates, and findings from the Bitcoin Sahi research community. Peer-reviewed by the community. Open for discussion.

Latest Research
🔬
Research Jul 28, 2026

Does Bitcoin's Fee Market Price Permanence or Just Congestion?

BIP-141 (SegWit) created a 4× weight discount for witness data — designed for malleability, not state economics. The result: an unpriced externality of ~$0.008 per inscription that every full node operator bears. This article presents the full UTXO cost model, verification appendix, and sensitivity analysis across 6 node scenarios.

💾
Analysis Jul 28, 2026

Pruned vs Archival: Does Pruning Eliminate the Externality?

Inscriptions are 0.91% of block space. Pruned nodes avoid ~70% of storage overhead but still pay 100% of bandwidth and CPU to download and verify every inscription before discarding it. The unavoidable cost: ~$2.53/yr per node. At 50K reachable nodes, that's ~$126K/yr aggregate. At 50× volume growth, it becomes significant.

⚖️
Analysis Jul 22, 2026

BIP-110 Debate: Community Reactions to the Reduced Data Softfork

Analysis of the 126-comment Reddit discussion on BIP-110. Key themes: Peter Todd's proof that the BIP is structurally ineffective (he embedded the full BIP text in a compliant transaction), Greg Maxwell's confiscation concern, the 55% threshold controversy, and Michael Saylor calling it "iatrogenic."

Community Debates
🔮
Debate Jul 28, 2026

"In 10 years, most nodes will be hobbyist-run. The externality won't matter."

A community member argues that if node operation becomes a hobbyist activity, the externality argument collapses. Counterpoint: Bitcoin's value depends on anyone being able to verify their own transactions. If node operation drifts from "cheap enough for anyone" to "hobbyist only," that's a security concern beyond inscription pricing.

💡
Debate Jul 28, 2026

"The question is not whether storage is paid — it's whether there's incentive to store."

A more precise framing of the research question. The externality argument only holds if node operators bear costs without compensating benefit. If every node operator either values the data or is compensated for storing it, there's no externality — the market works. Our response: the unavoidable bandwidth+CPU cost of downloading and verifying inscriptions before pruning is the portion that isn't priced.

📋
External View Jul 2026

"BIP-110 doesn't solve spam. It just moves it to worse constructions."

A detailed 10-point critique of BIP-110 covering: protocol neutrality violations, Peter Todd's bypass demo, incentivized centralized block space markets, confiscation risk, broken eltoo/ln-symmetry, UTXO bloat, broken Miniscript, lobotomized BitVM, lost miner fees, and the rushed governance precedent at 55% threshold.

Call for Contributions

✍️ Write for Bitcoin Sahi

We publish research, analysis, and debate about Bitcoin's economic architecture. If you have a perspective on block space pricing, the SegWit discount, UTXO growth, covenant proposals, or any related topic — we want to hear from you.

What we publish

Original research — Data-backed analysis of Bitcoin's economic architecture. Must include reproducible methodology.
Protocol analysis — Technical examination of BIPs, soft forks, or protocol changes with economic impact.
Debate responses — Well-reasoned counterarguments to published research. Critique is welcome if it's constructive.
Model contributions — Pull requests to the UTXO cost model with improved parameters or new scenarios.

Guidelines

Must be data-driven — include your sources, methodology, and assumptions
Must be reproducible — anyone should be able to verify your claims
Open to disagreement — we publish counterarguments alongside research
No token promotion, no NFT shilling, no "to the moon" content
No ad hominem — criticize ideas, not people
No consensus change proposals without data — we don't propose soft forks
Submit on r/BitcoinEngineering →

Post your article with tag [Research] and it will be reviewed by the community.