Within the Bitcoin network it is indistinct if we make a transaction to send money to our bitcoiner grandmother who lives in another country, if we make it to mint some digital asset based on a .jpg with the face of a vicious monkey, if it is to open a Lightning Network channel, if it is to exchange sats for the token of some sidechain, spacechain, federation, second or third layer, if we are making a payment to another person or if, on the contrary, we are only consolidating utxos.  

The Bitcoin network is agnostic about sender and recipient since by design there are no senders or recipients. The network is agnostic in relation to the entities that use it because there are only addresses and UTXO (amount of Bitcoin that remains after a transaction and that can be used as input in a future transaction). 

It does not distinguish whether we are funding a smart contract managed between several entities or if these entities are truly the same entity. The timechain does not record the meaning of the use we give it. The network only knows, uses and stores information about what happens within it and with the limitations that it has by design.  

In this sense, the timechain creates its own reality , a reality that is objective, open, transparent, unmodifiable and therefore basically indisputable.  

Let's look at an example: it is indisputable that the genesis block contains the inscription: The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks . Likewise, it is indisputable that this block had a reward of fifty bitcoins (without prejudice to the impossibility of spending in this specific case), that its block height is zero, that its Merkle root is 4a5...33b, that its weight is 0.285 KB, etc.  

Here I could state all the objective data duly secured by the immovable and impassable wall of cryptographic security accumulated in all the blocks accumulated above the genesis block. That is, the objectivity of the data, plus the impossibility of modifying the data by any human force, are what give us the confidence to say that the information stored there is indisputable.  

I clarify that what I mention as indisputable is the existence of the information in question and the moment in time in which it was added to the monopolistic decentralized and objective human clock that we call timechain.  

I emphasize the veracity of the existence of the hosted information and not its background content and much less its relationship with extra-timechain reality. In principle, there is no relationship between the information in question and its content. 

For example: it turns out that indeed the newspaper The Times of England, on January 3, 2009, published on its cover: Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks . But Satoshi could have written anything else that was not faithfully reflected in reality and nothing would change for the timechain.  

Logically, this same reasoning that I applied above to the genesis block can also be applied to block 1,2, n. The closer we get to the tip of the timechain, the more “debatable” the veracity of the information begins to be, since the amount of proof of work accumulated in that fragment of the chain may be insufficient to trust in the non-existence of a possible fork. with greater accumulation of proof of work. But for practical purposes, from six blocks deep we can already be confident that the information will not be modified.  

In conclusion: we are faced with a database that houses precise, objective, concrete, unmodifiable information, validated and accepted by all nodes in the network.  

Up to this point we analyze the certainty of what happens on chain. Let's now analyze what relationship may exist between on-chain and off-chain reality .  

Is there a real relationship between the information stored in the timechain and the extra-timechain reality? In other words: Is there a precise, objective, concrete, unmodifiable, validated and accepted way by all nodes in the network to relate the offchain reality with the onchain? This author's opinion is that the answer to this question is categorically and irremediably: no.  

Oracles do not and cannot exist on the Bitcoin network. Without prejudice to the possibilities of creating offchain oracles that interact in different ways with the bitcoin network, it has an insurmountable impossibility of knowing what happens outside of it . And this is a virtue not a defect. Feature, not a bug . Part of bitcoin's strength is built on absolute and total neutrality with respect to the infinity of possible meanings attributable to each utxo or set of utxos. It is thanks to this crucial neutrality that the network manages to be uncensorable and that its token has the fungibility of cash.  

When a wallet signs a transaction it then sends it to its node. The node checks if the transaction is valid. If it is not, it rejects it and therefore is not part of the bitcoin network, that is, the transaction attempt was never bitcoin because it was outside the protocol.  

On the contrary, if the transaction meets all the criteria to be a valid transaction, the node adds it to its mempool and broadcasts it to the other nodes with which it is connected. The other nodes also validate the transaction and only save it in their mempool and continue its distribution to other nodes if they also consider it valid.  

Then, opportunely the transaction reaches the mempool of mining nodes. Depending on the mining node, that is, depending on the ideology of the miner who programmed his node, the transaction may or may not be used to assemble the proposal for the next block. Each miner enjoys absolute freedom to choose which “types” of transactions he accepts, which he encourages, and which he rejects. The selection, in practice, is made based on ideological issues, but on the Internet it only materializes based on objective information that arises and exists there.  

The miner can, for example, choose to skip adding transactions that include certain addresses that appear on blacklists to their block project and thus seek to run a compliant mining node . It can also interpret that certain transactions such as ordinals constitute an attack on the network and, therefore, following its ethics, it leaves them aside by applying a filter for this.  

The miner is basically the owner of the block project. A block project can vary greatly with respect to another block project but always with the technical limitations imposed by the minimum rules of the protocol.  

The miner shows up to the winning block auction bringing with him the block project and all the hashing power he directed to convert his project into a block. On average, every ten minutes some miner wins the auction by paying with their block project plus the hashing power invested. For that payment he gets the bitcoins from the coinbase, plus the transaction fees that he decided to include, plus the possibility of influencing the network based on his ideology embodied in the way he put together his block project.  

A rational person who participates in an auction is not concerned or interested in what use the buyers will give to the things they acquire at the auction. His interest is focused on acquiring the auctioned things that he is interested in acquiring and only with respect to those things evaluating what use he will give them, since those belong to him while the others do not because they belong to others.  

The wonder of Bitcoin is that it lives and lets live. Those who want to fill the timechain with vicious primates or other banal uses pay the cost to do so and those who try to defend it so that it continues to function efficiently as the best money of humanity also have their reward. Perhaps the remuneration of the latter is not as immediate, direct and short-term as that of the former. But I have no doubt that the use of things according to their nature is what Nature desires and encourages. And eventually the cost of going against it is always paid by whoever attacks the basilisk.