Thread

Gotta rewind here: QuEra/Harvard publishes a result, peer reviewed in Nature, signed off on by researchers at MIT, NIST, U of Maryland and Caltech, but you don't agree the numbers should be believed, no do you agree they ran the algorithm they said they did. I'm not talking about the conclusions, just the raw data here. What about the earlier experiments by Microsoft + Quantinuum (trapped Ions), or Microsoft + Atom Computing (neutral), or Zurich, or any of the others, are we accepting any of the raw data from those? I need to figure out where the bottom is here. If there is no bottom then it's just solipsists discussing sociology.

Replies (1)

Any article with peer review is not empirical proof, I hate to break it you. This is empirical proof. See the difference? You are literally looking at an object of discrete and quantized time. Run your own node if you don’t want to trust mempool. I don’t care about qubit claims unless you can first provide empirical proof that time is continuous. Without that, everything rests on an unfalsifiable assumption. Gödelian limits already show you can’t even test that axiom from within the system doing the measuring. You point me to peer-reviewed papers; I point you to cryptographic proof. It’s public, conserved, and independently verifiable state transitions of a bounded thermodynamic system. You are asking for trust and I am removing the need for it. If your model requires assuming continuous time for “logical qubits” to exist, it’s already on shaky ground. Bitcoin doesn’t assume time; it computes it. In the end time (lol) will be judge. Bitcoin is time.
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.