This is the problem: the language and questions you ask the AI are of upmost importance. The principles upon which the questions are constructed from matters significantly.
The AI you used is answering the wrong question because it is framing my argument as a cryptographic claim when it is actually a foundational physics claim. I am not saying “Bitcoin’s 10-minute block interval protects it from quantum computers.”
I am saying something far more fundamental: if time itself is discrete, the formalism of quantum mechanics collapses.
Schrödinger’s equation requires a smooth ∂ψ/∂t; superposition requires continuous unitary evolution; decoherence requires continuous amplitude decay; and quantum computation requires continuous-time Hamiltonian evolution. If time is quantized, none of these mathematical structures even exist. Your AI never engages with this, which is the actual core of the argument.
Only after addressing that question do we ask the next, equally important one: is there any empirical system that models time as discrete, irreversible, and physically constructed?
Physics has always assumed continuous time, it has never measured it. Bitcoin does not assume time; Bitcoin computes time. It produces a discrete, thermodynamically anchored ordering of events that behaves analogously to physical time: irreversible, energy-bounded, and globally consistent. This makes Bitcoin the only system that provides an observable model of quantized time.
So the correct line of inquiry isn’t “Does discrete block time stop quantum attacks?” It’s: if time is discrete, what happens to the formalism of quantum mechanics and does Bitcoin provide empirical evidence of that discreteness? Your AI completely misses this because it never asks the deeper question.
The argument begins with physics, not cryptography.