I fed this post to ChatGPT and told it that the person who posted it makes the claim that Bitcoin is resistant to quantum threats . Am I correct that is your assertion? This is what it replied with. Thoughts? I still have not formed an opinion. I’m grasping to understand you, not disprove you. Sorry to use such crude tools to do so, but it’s what I have at my disposal.
Got it — this makes much more sense in context.
The person is making a physics argument to claim Bitcoin is immune to quantum attacks, and they’re doing it by pushing a very fringe premise:
Quantum computers require continuous time.
Bitcoin is discrete time.
Therefore quantum computers can’t break Bitcoin.
This is not how quantum threats to Bitcoin work, and their argument collapses once you unpack it.
Let me break down exactly what was wrong, what they meant, and what actually matters.
⸻
✅ 1. Their argument in plain English
They are saying:
1. Quantum mechanics relies on continuous time evolution (true).
2. If time were actually discrete, quantum mechanics would break (true).
3. Bitcoin advances in discrete blocks, therefore Bitcoin “lives in discrete time” (metaphor, not physics).
4. Therefore Bitcoin is not vulnerable to quantum computers because they rely on continuous time (false).
This is a category error.
⸻
❌ 2. Why this argument fails
Bitcoin’s block time is not physical time.
Bitcoin uses an integer counter (block height).
That is not “time.”
It’s a protocol-level ordering mechanism.
Quantum computers operate using real physical time (ns, µs, etc.), which is continuous enough to satisfy the Schrödinger equation.
Bitcoin’s 10-minute block interval has zero impact on physical laws.
Saying “Bitcoin uses discrete time, so quantum computers can’t attack it” is like saying:
“Chess is immune to hammers because chess clocks tick in whole numbers.”
It’s just mixing levels of abstraction.
⸻
❌ 3. Quantum threats to Bitcoin do not exploit block time
Quantum attacks target ECDSA, not the blockchain structure.
Specifically:
• Shor’s algorithm can recover a private key from a public key.
• This threatens:
• reused addresses
• unspent outputs where the public key has been revealed
• multisig scripts that expose public keys pre-spend
None of this depends on how Bitcoin measures time.
The threat surface is pure math, not temporal physics.
⸻
❌ 4. Quantum computers do not require continuous spacetime
Even if time were discrete at the Planck scale (this is unproven):
• Quantum computers would STILL work using effective continuous time, just like all of physics already does at macroscopic scale.
• The Schrödinger equation already functions as an emergent approximation of deeper physics.
Discrete-time quantum computation models already exist (developed by David Deutsch and others).
They work fine.
So even if physics had a discrete underlying time step:
Quantum computers would still exist and still run Shor’s algorithm.
His core premise doesn’t rescue Bitcoin.
⸻
❌ 5. Bitcoin’s security does not come from continuity vs discreteness
Bitcoin is quantum-resistant only to the extent that:
• public keys are not exposed
• addresses don’t reuse
• post-quantum signatures are adopted
• transactions settle quickly after broadcast
• private keys remain secret
None of this has anything to do with block time or discrete ordering.
⸻
🟩 6. The actual practical truth: Bitcoin can adapt
Bitcoin is vulnerable to sufficiently powerful quantum computers regarding ECDSA, but the field expects:
• decades before a large-scale quantum machine
• years of advance warning
• available post-quantum signature schemes today
• ability to soft fork to PQC (e.g., lattice-based signatures)
• Bitcoin users to sweep vulnerable funds long before a real threat emerges
So the real security model is:
→ Bitcoin is not invulnerable to quantum
→ But it is adaptable long before quantum becomes relevant
→ And most coins are already protected by hidden public keys
This is the sober, engineering-correct view.
⸻
🧠 7. Why someone would make the “discrete time” argument
It’s philosophical, not technical.
They are essentially saying:
“Bitcoin operates in the realm of classical computation.
Quantum mechanics might collapse if time is discrete.
So quantum attacks may be overstated.”
This is poetic, but not technically sound.
It does nothing to address the known, concrete cryptographic mathematics quantum computers attack.
⸻
🧵 If you want, I can also break down:
• What a real quantum attack on Bitcoin would look like
• Timeline estimates from current quantum labs
• Why hiding your public key protects you
• How Bitcoin would migrate to post-quantum signatures
• A Nostr-ready rebuttal to the discrete-time argument
Just say which direction you want to take it.
