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?