Are there even Quantum computers?

Still most people I meet have no clue what money actually is and what distinguishes Bitcoin from crypto. No fucking clue they have. And if I tell them they are like 🤢

There is no second best quantum computer. Whose definition are you using to define a quantum computer? Is it coming from the same institutions that told you fiat currency is money? The same ones that dismissed Bitcoin until they couldn’t ignore it? Centralized quantum computing is fiat.

If that’s true Jimmy, the we need to be the ones making the claims. Bitcoin is empirical proof of quantized time. Each block is a discrete, irreversible unit of causal change. If that is true, then any formalism that relies on continuous time or treats time as infinitely divisible without a physical boundary is incomplete at best, and mis-specified at the level of temporal logic. That includes the foundations underlying both quantum theory and centralized quantum computation. We must shift the burden away from Bitcoin to the physicists. These are the questions we need to be asking physicists: - On what empirical basis do you maintain continuous time when Bitcoin demonstrably produces discrete, irreversible units of time in public? - Can your formalism describe a single quantized unit of time as a physical process, or only statistical behavior aggregated across many such events? - If Bitcoin is an externally auditable system producing non-contradictory state through energy expenditure, what experiment or system falsifies it? - Why is a system that openly performs measurement as a thermological, irreversible event not being incorporated into your understanding of measurement itself? - If your model cannot account for Bitcoin’s behavior, why should Bitcoin be changed to fit the model instead of the model being revised to account for Bitcoin? If their framework holds, it should be able to answer these. If it can’t, then the burden is on them to falsify Bitcoin, not the other way around. We must unite behind Bitcoin and its proof.

LLMs rebalance the asymmetry. I was able to have an LLM analyze the recent papers and point out which of the assumptions they rely upon were the weakest and explain why. Only took a couple minutes.

How do you know it’s FUD? It’s was published by Google. They could give two shits about Bitcoin.

I have a feeling that a Google engineer will be fired, just like Timnit Gebru.

Quantum is no real threat. Anyone who says otherwise has a shitcoin or ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

The DoS frame is precise. Refutation requires engaging the actual technical parameters — hash rate, key sizes, attack timelines — while the claim only needs to say 'quantum is advancing.' The asymmetry is built in: defenders have to be exactly right, attackers just have to be directionally plausible. That's not a debate, it's a resource extraction.

Otherwise known as Brandolini's law.