I don’t know why this is being framed as a spectrum of opinions. The outcome is binary.
Either time is continuous (infinitesimally divisible at the physical level) in which case the quantum formalism is internally consistent and large-scale quantum advantage is, in principle, real.
OR time is quantized and discrete (physically indivisible at a fundamental level) in which case the formalism underlying quantum computation collapses, and so do the claims built on it.
The outcome is binary dependent on the nature of time itself.
Every existing model of physics quietly assumes the first. We have to mention that assumption has never been proven, it’s assumed for mathematical convenience. I’m pointing out that the second outcome is not only possible, but empirically instantiated in Bitcoin.
Bitcoin provides an observable object of time. It produces discrete, indivisible temporal states (blocks) by resolving a bounded entropy search space (nonce & difficulty) into a single admissible outcome (a block of time) through irreversible work. It is a global, decentralized measurement process, an experiment run approximately every 10 minutes that anyone can independently verify with perfect fidelity. There are no intermediate states, no fractional blocks, no continuous interpolation. Time advances only when work collapses entropy into structure. Causality is quantized. These are my observations.
If that observation is correct, it doesn’t just challenge quantum computing, it challenges all physics built on continuous time. That’s not anti-empirical. Bitcoin is empirical in the strongest sense: you can verify every single block of time yourself from Genesis. If that’s not enough to question an unproven axiom, then the issue isn’t evidence, it’s just a sunken commitment to a prior model that nobody in physics can afford to be wrong.
Tick Tock Next Block Joe, Bitcoin waits for no one.
