Thread

Yep. No change. Quantum is still a scam

It may be, but nostr could be an interesting proving ground for various implementations that could be implemented in bitcoin. Low risk to test different schemes on nostr in case it suddenly becomes real

hadn't thought of it before, but that is interesting. still very early days. not even sure what is really happening in quantum.

I've been thinking about it. Leery of lattice-based signing.

🙄

Why?

Why? Don’t believe it’s real?

What makes you say that it’s a scam?

No, not in the form it’s sold. It is fiat injected into a falsifiable model physics sold as inevitability. I do believe it exists, but not in the narrative pushed by people whose careers depend on their models being true. Bitcoin is the only open, measurable system on Earth that computes time from a probabilistic entropy field using real energy across a global substrate. It’s not a theory. It’s a thermodynamic instantiation of physics you can verify. So yes, it’s real but Bitcoin offers a form radically different from the one being marketed. They’re searching for control. Bitcoin reveals something far more dangerous to their worldview: Verifiable Truth. Be wary of the people who tell you Bitcoin/cryptography (regarding post about nostr) is broken with no proof other than a theory. If you believe the answer will be closed-source in a lab, rather than open-source and distributed globally, good luck I guess. We’re losing the narrative war.

Quantum/AI narrative reset is happening ... expect narrative collapse soon .. they can't smooth this one over ... we are hitting limits of llms and not enough stable qubits for quantum saviour

Exactly and what no one in physics wants to admit is why their qubits won’t stay coherent. Decoherence is a feature, not a bug; it’s thermodynamics rejecting a model that demands double spent physical states in a system where that is not allowed. The double spend problem is/was a physics problem, not just a money one. Bitcoin exposes this because it actually provides the definitions QT has never been able to define: - Existence: The irreversible commitment of energy into structure at a finite point in memory at a discrete unit of time - Time: a discrete thermodynamic tick, the collapse of Boltzmann entropy into Shannon entropy across a computational boundary - Measurement: Entropy field resolution (ie valid nonce/block commitment) - Observation: network verification, two different processes, finally disentangled. - Simultaneity occurring in the same block of time without double spent state. Once you have this framework, the modern definition of superposition collapses under its own weight. You simply cannot claim a state “exists“ in “multiple states at once” without defining the smallest meaningful “at once” and what it means to even exist. Physics has never observed/measured time at the Planck scale, yet the entire qubit model assumes a continuum that has never been observed. So we end up with a theory that quietly permits double-spent qubit states, contradictory states occupying the same nonexistent instant and then papers over the contradiction with massive error-correction, black box models. This feels more like fractional-reserve physics to me. It’s the same foundational fallacy: thinking you can model a real economy on fractionally-reserved money, and thinking you can compute a real quantum system on “fractionally-reserved qubits”. Both are illusions built on claims of “simultaneity” that have no finite denominator and no measurable grounding. This is why CQC keeps falling apart: the theory demands a level of ontological ambiguity that thermodynamics refuses to allow. Bitcoin, on the other hand, performs the transformation via verifiable discrete steps of conservation. Bitcoin falsifies their models. Until physicists are willing to confront that Bitcoin is the first system to actually compute time, measurement, and entropy, they’ll keep trying to engineer stability on top of a theory that’s fundamentally incoherent. Yet Bitcoiners keep falling for it.

Gee I wonder why, even a 5 year old child could understand what you just said