quantum computers can't factor 21. sha256 is safe

3 papers is generous

PhD physical scientist here -- not in the quantum area, but with some familiarity. Best take I've heard based on my own "partially informed" understanding of both fields is -- (a) it's a concern but (b) it's not an imminent threat. This field isn't anything like modern semiconductors where you have Moore's law, etc. A variety of different approaches to the actual physical platforms of QC are still getting investment, which says to me that the field hasn't even settled on a single "reference hardware" implementation the same way that semiconductors have...

Nah, this is exactly how we resolve this debate. The experts are free to weigh in, but I'm sick of hearing these kinds of appeals to authority. Everyone can have an opinion. Nostr exists for people to talk about things. Deal with it.

Someone needs to have a recorded conversation with @Jack K because I need the laymen’s understanding of his thesis that bitcoin is the quantum computer.

You'd surely agree that quantum computing is not the kind of discipline where everyone can have their opinion while also demanding to be taken seriously, right? Of course I agree with you that everyone should be able to speak freely though

💯

I’m objectively saying that Bitcoin computes a quantum (block) of time. The smallest and only unit causal change any temporal-informational system can undergo. I’m trying to define a quantum computer from first principles instead of trusting the projected narrative. A decentralized macro computer. Self verification through Bitcoin. Bitcoin operates at the quantum level of energy, time, information and logic. Why isn’t it physics?

are you going to listen to the world's best experts on economics for their advice on the bitcoin monetary policy too?

Or...we could ignore the debate and focus our mental energy on things that matter. I think about it in the same way that I do the Bitcoin Carbon Emissions debate. In short, I don't. People are getting to used to being pulled this way and that, told what they should worry about etc. I'm too lazy to give a fuck. Thats my hot take.

Great example of a retarded rhetoric

Yes. Invite all the Q phys peeps to Nashville next year.

Based calle

Did you catch this AMA on Stacker News ? https://stacker.news/items/1477467/r/ThatWhichisNotSeen

That'd be mad. Does Nashville actually have the physics crowd though, or are we talking about dragging them there?

Bitcoin is for anyone.

Double-spend?

Forced? Who's forcing who? I've read zero papers, but BIP361 is retarded. I don't care if it's possible or not, or how soon it might happen. The possibility of coins being stolen is not an excuse to freeze them. Just because we put the word "quantum" in front of this particular method of stealing coins doesn't change that. There is no paper, or quantum expert who's opinion is relevant to this. View quoted note →

right, but "for anyone" means something different to a builder versus someone in Lagos versus me writing at my kitchen table, yeah? what does it actually mean to you?

You're right, still I hope the general meaning of my note wasn't lost

I agree. The problem is the physics experts don’t understand Bitcoin, and the Bitcoin experts don’t understand it either. Nobody does.

Just invite them to speak at Bitcoin 2027 in Nashville

This is actually what happens with most important subjects in like every topic. One huge reason why social media platforms are so shit and toxic, in my opinion.

And then we put the plebs on stage at our biggest conference with the most reach and have them argue. Agree here, we need the quantum guys talking to the cryptographers and actually gaming this out.

Well, TBH, I’ll ignore the experts as well. Until someone demonstrates moving Satoshi’s coins with a quantum computer it’s all just meant to scare me out of my sats anyhow(I’m not scared). I have more important things to do, like sit on my patio and watch the leaves rustle in the wind. 🚁😎

They have and do chime in. There's just really not much to say at the current stage of hardware development because as long as your key is >5 bits a conventional computer is a much bigger threat. Nothing has practically changed since Satoshi was here. Is there a threat? Sure. Is it imminent? No. But for cool development against future threats see Ethan Heilman, Robin Linus, and Avihu Levy. They've got some cool stuff going on that addresses not just potential quantum attacks but also potential conventional attacks that have yet to be discovered.

Wait people are tuning into Vegas for a look at Quantum? Lol. Even the MIT Expo felt overly fuddy. I can only imagine how bad Vegas must be.

Who are currently the best people to learn from?

This:

Nah no need for anyone to chime in. Compute something with a quantum computer or stfu.

Very bad strategy.

trying to understand your bitcoin lens: i think maybe anything (anything?) can be described in terms of physics. but quantum physics can possibly allow a description of _bitcoin_ as quantum computation…in an ideal sense of how things play out/manifest/are realized… if it’s (somewhat) accurate…i’ve been intrigued. also, though, i can think how everything depends on the language one uses to describe something. and so also, there’s the thought that if everything “is physics,” then so is bitcoin. /// then to calle’s quantum slop points… spoke w a physics professor last year who basically said (as said elsewhere too) that quantum computing has a materials problem. it’s an issue w the physical hardware that makes it (currently?) infeasible, like it’s a problem for room temperature superconductivity. #wishiknewmorephysics!

Don’t trust verify is a good strategy actually. What can we learn from chiming in that we don’t know already? The fundamentals are all established by now. What remains is to make a quantum computer.

Fair point—there's only so much debate gets you. What are you actually building toward with quantum stuff, or more just following where it lands?

Hard science != Soft science

I thought we owned the Science

That’s an “appeal to authority” logical fallacy. Quantum needs evidence for it’s extraordinary claims: We don’t freak out about teleportation but that tech would be even more disruptive. The quantum threat isn’t proven. The recent ‘15-bit encryption cracked’ experiment turned out to be false. Shor’s algorithm needs millions of stable qubits; current machines have thousands of noisy ones. Bitcoin’s secp256k1 is safe for the foreseeable future.

Watching Bitcoiners fall for the appeal to authority fallacy is hilarious… Especially devs trusting a threat that you can’t see, understand and have zero evidence of. 🤣

it’s also alluding to the fact that Bitcoin is not only based n physics but it’s an example of quantum coherence or meaning it exists in multiple possible states simultaneously rather than collapsing into one definite state.(something that “quantum” computers are claiming with no evidence) Current quantum computers require extreme isolation, fail constantly, and have produced no cryptographically relevant results… so “quantum” is largely a marketing label. @Jack K s framework is spot on in my opinion. ⚡️

Now do Nostr wannabe doctors spewing their ignorant nonsense 😂

really feeling what you said here: so “quantum” is largely a marketing label. one can guess that you must obviously know yourself that you are babbling (no grammar, being vague with saying “it” a lot) and have not at all added any clarity to it (the bitcoin lens framework). one of their main claims is that superposition is not possible, because of a certain type of quantum description of base layer physics…if at a quantum level of physics everything is discrete in nature, superposition is impossible and so too is the quantum computers that rely on quantum descriptions of particles. so lots of confusion happens when quantum computers are being rejected as unreal or unrealizable…but then still using quantum computing as an analogy to describe bitcoin.

Let me be more clear on why “it’s” more of a marketing label: Bitcoin exhibits more genuine quantum properties than any supercooled chip being marketed as a “quantum computer” today. 1- Bitcoin’s UTXO set exists in a state of non-local superposition across thousands of independent nodes simultaneously with no canonical location, and that state only collapses through energy-grounded consensus when a block is confirmed. That is structurally identical to how quantum coherence resolves. 2- The ledger is not stored somewhere, it IS the network, and the network is grounded in thermodynamic reality because every block required irreversible energy expenditure to produce. 3- Bitcoin does not require an authority as proof of its function. It relies on direct experience (via node runners) and has never been hacked in over 17 years. Meanwhile, the machines being called quantum computers cannot maintain coherence for more than milliseconds, have never cracked more than 15 bits of encryption despite years of hype, yet claims that it’s a threat to BTC. They exist almost entirely as a narrative of future capability. So yes, quantum computing as an analogy for Bitcoin is contradictory only if you accept the marketing label at face value. Or appeal to their authority. Strip that away and the question becomes which system actually demonstrates non-locality, energy grounding, and consensus-based state resolution at scale. Bitcoin does that right now. The supercooled chips do not.

it’s a lot for me to perhaps eventually understand. thank you ✨ 🙏

🙏

stupidity != retardation

lol when was the last time you admitted you were wrong in your life?

if you don't agree with calle's perspective you're not a valid expert