Thread

This is a great way to say it. Quantum is the new alchemy. It appears that whatever these machines are actually doing, if we had a sane theory to describe it, there seems to be a physical limit of something like 100 logical qbits anyway, before the error correction introduces more noise than reduces. Not enough to ever crack a key.

Quantum is the new alchemy of fiat. It’s alchemy because nothing about its foundational claims is verifiable. The entire enterprise rests on objects “qubits” that no one outside the black box is permitted to observe, measure, or confirm. Their existence is asserted, not demonstrated and their coherence is inferred without proof. Trust down the whole stack. It is fiat physics: an IOU for a particle you are told is real, but that cannot be independently verified without destroying the very claim you are asked to believe. Bitcoin stands in absolute contrast to this. Bitcoin provides public, thermodynamic proof at every step. The entropy spent is measurable. The information produced is auditably conserved. The transformation is irreversible, visible, and verifiable by anyone. Bitcoin grounds its claims in physical commitment. It does not ask for belief; it demands verification. It demands you to verify the proof of conservation of energy and information at each block of time. Quantum computing by comparison is an architecture of trust masquerading as science. Its entire theoretical framework treats unmeasured potentials as real physical states. It assumes simultaneity without defining a quantum of time. It assumes existence without defining a measurement. It treats probabilistic amplitudes as physical superpositions, even though no experiment has ever resolved the smallest unit of temporal change needed to make the word “simultaneous” meaningful, Planck Time. Calling the states of qubits “real” is like calling every unconfirmed transaction in the mempool a spendable UTXO. It collapses the category distinction between potential and actual. It is the same conceptual error as fractional-reserve banking: multiplying an uncommitted base unit by narrative and assumption instead of proof. QT would claim Satoshi did not solve the double spend problem; nonsense. Bitcoin exposes the incoherence of this worldview because it demonstrates how physical reality actually works. No state “exists” without entropy committed. No structure is real without measurable, irreversible work behind it. No timeline emerges without resolving uncertainty into information through thermodynamic expenditure. Anything real can be verified. Bitcoin is the only open system in the world that computes the isomorphism between energy and information in real time. It unifies Boltzmann entropy and Shannon entropy into a single measurable object: a block. Each block is a physical statement about what exists because it is a record of what was thermodynamically committed. That process is observable, verifiable, and independent of anyone’s claims. Quantum computing on the other hand gives you none of this. No proof, no measurement, no conservation. Just promises, grant money, opaque experiments, and the insistence that you should “trust the science,” even though the science has yet to demonstrate a single stable, scalable, independently verified qubit. Bitcoin gives us the first verifiable standard for energy, information, and time and once you have a real standard, you’re no longer obligated to treat unmeasured claims as knowledge. Bitcoin gives you truth because it forces every claim to bear the cost of physical reality. Quantum computing gives you narrative because it cannot survive that cost. If one of these systems is going to rewrite our understanding of physics, it isn’t the one hiding behind closed labs, NDAs, and unverifiable claims. It’s the one proving itself every ten minutes in open daylight. The threat is us listening to their narratives about “upgrades” to what isn’t broken.

Forgot to say it, but Bitcoin is the theory/model/language to understand what they are saying. You should be calling bullshit.

The experts disagree. CRQC 5% chance in under 5 years, 50% chance in under 10. Reference: Quantum Threat Timeline Report 2024.

The experts who lose their funding, fame and lavish salaries if they admit the ceiling is there?

Diverse range of experts from both academia and industry, with a large range of timelines, some including pretty much never. You know the report I'm talking about?

Yet, nobody can understand quantum mechanics without Bitcoin.