Thread

Ok, what does this mean, aside from not breaking our keys?

It means that quantum computers are not special, they are just one kind of information system that deals with finite local information. The economy is actually a much better computer, since it also deals with finite local information, but it goes further by interacting with many other layers of such informational systems (cognition, technology, culture, etc) while a quantum computer is restricted to just its own level. It also means that no centralized AI will be better than a decentralized system involving multiple actors. It's very reassuring.

GM. This is great news to hear from someone else. nostr:nevent1qqs83ndg9nu9lhpht8vezmqtrusq37cf7d2gcvuhhy80492ysmtzqxqltkfny

You were really on to something!

Nice. This is a first decent explanation that counters all that AI and quantum FUD. It’s very tiring to hear; I don’t see it as an imminent threat, but don’t really have any arguments to counter the FUD. For me, the simple counter argument is more decentralization.

I've had this same intuition for some time. We can see decentralized systems winning all around us.

What he said. nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqwe6gtf5eu9pgqk334fke8f2ct43ccqe4y2nhetssnypvhge9ce9qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy08wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wshsqgp478y8xc6druj3njyc3c86fatc0w3sdq2ky7e8a004suqpgl5elgk4s9e0

Lot's of Quantum enjoyers at BPI Summit...

Where can I read more?

Yeah this is very concerning, especially coming from BPI. Most people are operating on a trust don’t verify basis regarding quantum. Quantum is the final boss of FUD. Bitcoin made the economists fools; physicists are next. Bitcoin phase 2 begins when enough people acknowledge it as the quantum computer. Until then, all forks for quantum should be seen as an attack on Bitcoin until a real threat can be verified.

Thank you! Just a fun an very simple thought experiment to run: If UTXOs are qubits, why can’t we run Shor/Grover on top of Bitcoin’s qubit set?

The issue is that the idea that a quantum computer "tries all paths at once" is an artifact of the global wavefunction, which is just an approximation in my theory. You can can create systems with increasing resolution, but it comes with an entropy cost (like bitcoin mining) so "quantum supremacy" is not an intrinsic feature, just a result of having more informational resolution than other classical systems.

I’m doing the final revisions on the article and will publish it here soon.

To be more precise with the analogy: resolution in physics is roughly equivalent to block height in Bitcoin. The longer your local copy of the timechain, the more information (resolution) you possess. So, implementing Shor’s algorithm to break a sufficiently large key would be analogous to performing a large amount of PoW (an entropy cost) in physics, not something you get for free through quantum error correction magic. In short, it would require a significant amount of energy to flatten the effective local wavefunction enough to solve large problems.

To be clear, it was attendees of BPI Summit. Idk BPI's opinion on qunatum.

How does one verify a real quantum threat?

For verification I’d say open inquiry and questions are a good start. Define the stakes. Question the principles. Flip the burden of proof to the other side. However, quantum appears to always be verified via irreversible memory. If quantum computing as popularly imagined is physically viable at scale and capable of breaking ECDSA, then a coordinated defensive response thru forks makes sense. But if it’s not and the assumptions behind “quantum supremacy” are flawed at a fundamental, physical level, then any proposed fork to accommodate it isn’t a safety upgrade. It’s a downgrade/attack, and regression in Bitcoin’s integrity disguised as caution. This is an attack in outcome regardless of intent by most people following the narrative. It’s all about verification. So, verification must begin from first principles: Energy. Entropy. Time. Measurement. We’ve been told a story that quantum computers can try all paths at once. They can factor primes exponentially faster. They can extract secrets from our cryptographic defenses through coherence, interference, and elegant math. Bitcoin imposes real questions like: - Who collapses the wavefunction in their system? - Where does the entropy go? - What’s the energy cost of this computation? - Who owns the qubits? - Where is the actual machine? Shor’s algorithm is not a law of physics. It’s a clever mathematical procedure that assumes global phase coherence, precise resolution of periodicity, and unrestricted measurement access all without paying a thermodynamic price. That’s not rational science to me, so let’s openly discuss this. Quantum has always been the final boss FUD and few have stood up any logical and principle based responses except “quantum resistant cryptography” as if anyone could actually define what that means. The simulation is purely theoretical until proven otherwise. Now contrast that with Bitcoin: - The qubits are UTXOs. - Their state is cryptographically sealed until voluntarily spent. - Measurement is not passive. It is a transaction, thermodynamically priced through proof-of-work. - There is no lab, no privileged observer, no centralized coherence. - Every physical bit of resolution comes with real energy cost. Quantum computing assumes resolution is free. Bitcoin proves it’s not. Is Bitcoin not verification? To simulate global coherence you’d need a synchronized, permissioned view of the entire UTXO set. But no one owns all the keys and what value would that provide? Each transaction is local, privately held, and cryptographically secured. Measurement only occurs when a party chooses to collapse state by signing. Until then, it’s superposed, but inaccessible. Not by force, not by simulation, not by theory. Bitcoin is the only quantum known system that: - Measures entropy into irreversible memory - Anchors that memory in time - Requires energy for resolution - And runs globally, without trust So the burden of proof no longer sits on Bitcoin to “defend” against quantum. The burden sits with physicists to prove their models apply to a system like Bitcoin. These questions don’t come from hostility. They come from open scientific inquiry, the very ethos Bitcoin extends. Open source, auditable, adversarially hardened. Bitcoin doesn’t hide in a lab. What does it mean to compute a quantum? Wouldn’t this be most important verifying a quantum threat? If quantum computing is actually about resolving entropy via energy into irreversible memory in a discrete quantum of time, then why does any bitcoiner trust the physicists more than the network that’s already doing it without trust? These are my thoughts and questions in my attempt to verify. I encourage everyone to join me. It’s in everyone’s interest to understand Bitcoin. What if we’re all wrong?