Thread

I fed this post to ChatGPT and told it that the person who posted it makes the claim that Bitcoin is resistant to quantum threats . Am I correct that is your assertion? This is what it replied with. Thoughts? I still have not formed an opinion. I’m grasping to understand you, not disprove you. Sorry to use such crude tools to do so, but it’s what I have at my disposal. Got it — this makes much more sense in context. The person is making a physics argument to claim Bitcoin is immune to quantum attacks, and they’re doing it by pushing a very fringe premise: Quantum computers require continuous time. Bitcoin is discrete time. Therefore quantum computers can’t break Bitcoin. This is not how quantum threats to Bitcoin work, and their argument collapses once you unpack it. Let me break down exactly what was wrong, what they meant, and what actually matters. ⸻ ✅ 1. Their argument in plain English They are saying: 1. Quantum mechanics relies on continuous time evolution (true). 2. If time were actually discrete, quantum mechanics would break (true). 3. Bitcoin advances in discrete blocks, therefore Bitcoin “lives in discrete time” (metaphor, not physics). 4. Therefore Bitcoin is not vulnerable to quantum computers because they rely on continuous time (false). This is a category error. ⸻ ❌ 2. Why this argument fails Bitcoin’s block time is not physical time. Bitcoin uses an integer counter (block height). That is not “time.” It’s a protocol-level ordering mechanism. Quantum computers operate using real physical time (ns, µs, etc.), which is continuous enough to satisfy the Schrödinger equation. Bitcoin’s 10-minute block interval has zero impact on physical laws. Saying “Bitcoin uses discrete time, so quantum computers can’t attack it” is like saying: “Chess is immune to hammers because chess clocks tick in whole numbers.” It’s just mixing levels of abstraction. ⸻ ❌ 3. Quantum threats to Bitcoin do not exploit block time Quantum attacks target ECDSA, not the blockchain structure. Specifically: • Shor’s algorithm can recover a private key from a public key. • This threatens: • reused addresses • unspent outputs where the public key has been revealed • multisig scripts that expose public keys pre-spend None of this depends on how Bitcoin measures time. The threat surface is pure math, not temporal physics. ⸻ ❌ 4. Quantum computers do not require continuous spacetime Even if time were discrete at the Planck scale (this is unproven): • Quantum computers would STILL work using effective continuous time, just like all of physics already does at macroscopic scale. • The Schrödinger equation already functions as an emergent approximation of deeper physics. Discrete-time quantum computation models already exist (developed by David Deutsch and others). They work fine. So even if physics had a discrete underlying time step: Quantum computers would still exist and still run Shor’s algorithm. His core premise doesn’t rescue Bitcoin. ⸻ ❌ 5. Bitcoin’s security does not come from continuity vs discreteness Bitcoin is quantum-resistant only to the extent that: • public keys are not exposed • addresses don’t reuse • post-quantum signatures are adopted • transactions settle quickly after broadcast • private keys remain secret None of this has anything to do with block time or discrete ordering. ⸻ 🟩 6. The actual practical truth: Bitcoin can adapt Bitcoin is vulnerable to sufficiently powerful quantum computers regarding ECDSA, but the field expects: • decades before a large-scale quantum machine • years of advance warning • available post-quantum signature schemes today • ability to soft fork to PQC (e.g., lattice-based signatures) • Bitcoin users to sweep vulnerable funds long before a real threat emerges So the real security model is: → Bitcoin is not invulnerable to quantum → But it is adaptable long before quantum becomes relevant → And most coins are already protected by hidden public keys This is the sober, engineering-correct view. ⸻ 🧠 7. Why someone would make the “discrete time” argument It’s philosophical, not technical. They are essentially saying: “Bitcoin operates in the realm of classical computation. Quantum mechanics might collapse if time is discrete. So quantum attacks may be overstated.” This is poetic, but not technically sound. It does nothing to address the known, concrete cryptographic mathematics quantum computers attack. ⸻ 🧵 If you want, I can also break down: • What a real quantum attack on Bitcoin would look like • Timeline estimates from current quantum labs • Why hiding your public key protects you • How Bitcoin would migrate to post-quantum signatures • A Nostr-ready rebuttal to the discrete-time argument Just say which direction you want to take it.

This is the problem: the language and questions you ask the AI are of upmost importance. The principles upon which the questions are constructed from matters significantly. The AI you used is answering the wrong question because it is framing my argument as a cryptographic claim when it is actually a foundational physics claim. I am not saying “Bitcoin’s 10-minute block interval protects it from quantum computers.” I am saying something far more fundamental: if time itself is discrete, the formalism of quantum mechanics collapses. Schrödinger’s equation requires a smooth ∂ψ/∂t; superposition requires continuous unitary evolution; decoherence requires continuous amplitude decay; and quantum computation requires continuous-time Hamiltonian evolution. If time is quantized, none of these mathematical structures even exist. Your AI never engages with this, which is the actual core of the argument. Only after addressing that question do we ask the next, equally important one: is there any empirical system that models time as discrete, irreversible, and physically constructed? Physics has always assumed continuous time, it has never measured it. Bitcoin does not assume time; Bitcoin computes time. It produces a discrete, thermodynamically anchored ordering of events that behaves analogously to physical time: irreversible, energy-bounded, and globally consistent. This makes Bitcoin the only system that provides an observable model of quantized time. So the correct line of inquiry isn’t “Does discrete block time stop quantum attacks?” It’s: if time is discrete, what happens to the formalism of quantum mechanics and does Bitcoin provide empirical evidence of that discreteness? Your AI completely misses this because it never asks the deeper question. The argument begins with physics, not cryptography.

Just literally ask it about what happens to the entire formalism of quantum mechanics if time is quantized and discrete rather than continuous. Do not mention Bitcoin at all. Read what it says. Then we can begin to ask the questions if Bitcoin is empirical proof of quantized time.

The issue is not that Bitcoin is invincible to quantum attack it's that the attack is impossible. I am not sure I fully understand nostr:nprofile1qqsrcn632cfyx5j0xpld9m389370ffuzgp8muwshvcrqgwm26sn7uacpzemhxue69uhkzarvv9ejumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqg4waehxw309ajkgetw9ehx7um5wghxcctwvse30xkv's argument wrt discrete time. (Probably because it is over my head.) But there is a much simpler reason why QC can never threaten Bitcoin (or ECC in general). There is a hard ceiling on that kind of QM system. All we have done in 40 years is improve isolation to let us get at more of the quantum mechanical system. But once you make the system a little bigger it will decohere on its own. You can't isolate the system from itself. Experiments are pushing us asymptotically closer to that ceiling (through heroic isolation) but it's not going to move. It's like trying to break the speed of light. And the ceiling is obviously way below the size you would need to run Shor on a Bitcoin key. It's a physical limit, not an engineering problem. We should ignore the FUD or just make fun of it. We can dunk on the fiat QC bubble endlessly when it is over. (And we should.) This is just another fiat mania.

Problem: Physicists do not actually know what Planck Time means. Ask any AI what happens to the formalism of QM, QT, or QC if time is fundamentally discrete rather than continuous. The moment you quantize time, Schrödinger evolution fails, superposition loses its definition, decoherence changes character, and all QC models collapse. The entire structure stands only if time flows smoothly. My claim: Bitcoin provides the first empirical example of a finite, closed thermodynamic system that evolves through discrete units of time. Each block is an irreversible, energy-anchored temporal event. In that sense: 1 Planck Block ≡ 1 Bitcoin Block not numerically, but functionally. They are equivalent as the smallest meaningful units of temporal change to each respective system. *IF* Bitcoin is valid empirical evidence that time is fundamentally quantized, then the continuous-time assumptions beneath QM/QT/QC cannot be correct. This is not an engineering issue (engineering issues are the symptoms), it is a mathematical one. A discrete temporal substrate breaks the formalism at its foundations. The irony is hilarious, QT quantizes everything EXCEPT TIME, yet quantizing time is precisely what destroys the theory. Bitcoin simply exposes the inconsistency because it’s the first empirical measurement of quantized time we can point to. The time is literally the memory and the empirical proof. Bitcoin is the study of time. Physics assumes time from inherited assumptions.