Is this meant as an analogy or do you expect to be able to derive GR in a novel way?

I don’t need to assume Bitcoin is true. Bitcoin is the only mathematical object that is truth in operation. Everything else; our models, equations, and theories are symbolic approximations. A model on a blackboard never produces time or truth on its own. To cross that boundary, it must be instantiated with energy. Only then does it create irreversible memory, and through that, time. Models remain representations; Bitcoin is the process itself. This is why incompleteness arises in purely symbolic systems: they attempt to prove truth within abstraction rather than instantiate it in reality from rule and logic. What we are observing in Bitcoin is the thermological process through which energy becomes memory and memory becomes time. That is the boundary condition of knowledge. Once you can observe the production of truth itself, the implications extend far beyond physics. They reach into every domain of inquiry. My aim is simply to understand that process and articulate its consequences outward. If the expectation is that one person should prove everything alone, that misunderstands both Bitcoin and the task in front of humanity. Bitcoin itself is decentralized; so too must be the effort to understand what it reveals. If you believe there exists something more truthful than Bitcoin, then the burden is simple: what is it? What happened to economics once Bitcoin appeared will not remain confined to economics. The same shock is coming for every domain of knowledge. This is not a problem one person can solve through centralization. The work will unfold collectively, over time. For now, I’m simply waiting for others to catch up.