Thread

I’m not proposing a new threshold curve between 100 and 2000 logical qubits. I’m challenging a prior axiom your inevitability story quietly depends on: continuous time. I don’t need any equation to falsify that assumption. Bitcoin is a running, falsifiable counterexample. Here is a block of time: 000000000000000000009fc6465aa4fc20d3324f889256815a34dbb4c7151f80. There are 928,303 others. Each block of time is an atomic, irreversible state transition produced by work. There is no valid intermediate block, no fractional finality, no “half-time” state that nodes can verify. You cannot subdivide the temporal state transition the protocol recognizes. That is exactly what quantized time means operationally to physics. If time is quantized, the object you call a qubit loses its assumed ontology. Superposition, as used in quantum computing, relies on continuous time to define “simultaneous” phase evolution and coherent state persistence. Change the structure of time, and superposition is no longer a physically coexisting state, it becomes a probabilistic description over discrete updates. In that frame, a qubit is not an extant computational substrate; it is a potential state between irreversible transitions. Please, go build and Bitcoin with continuous state evolution, allow intermediate consensus states or partial finality and still prevent contradiction without trust. You can’t. Verification collapses. That’s not poetry; that’s a falsifiable property of the system. If you still want to claim inevitability for Shor’s algorithm, then the burden is on you to prove the axiom it depends on: that time is continuous. Until then, you’re asserting an ontology Bitcoin directly challenges with open proof, and calling that challenge “poetry” doesn’t make it go away. No equation I produce changes that as any formalism is dependent on the structure of time. I don’t have to produce any formalism to falsify the axiom you insist upon, Satoshi already did that for me. If you want some poetry: Continuous time is the foundation to the Tower of Babel that all of physics relies upon. It just takes 1 empirical block of time for it to all come down without touching a single equation.

The Mempool Open Source Project®

Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with The Mempool Open Source Project®. See the real-time status of your transactions, get network info, and more.

I’m looking forward to the day that all these QC companies actually release a system in the wild (universally accessible) that solves a real problem or problems. Not “financial portfolio optimisation” or other impossible to validate (and civilisation-ally meaningless) claims. If a100stable qubit QC applications are ALREADY changing the world for the better, where can I buy one and what could it do? When I read the press releases of all these “credible” sources pumping their own QC bags, I get the sense they are written by Silicon Valley/Wall St marketing departments. I’m not the only one. There are many many thoughtful people asking these same questions. Where is the “quantum” breakthrough of important and useful APPLICATIONS? All the press seems to be focused on the promises of such applications in the future. Are we there yet? Or is 100qubits not sufficient for any REAL innovation? Pls don’t respond angrily. Skepticism is good. Especially in novel industries that have failed to deliver on past promises and time frames. (Follow solid/semi-solid state battery development if you want another) PS Even the most dumbed down LLM query offers the same skepticism. So I don’t think I’m being absurd in asking the question.