Thread

Bitcoin has everything to do with quantum. The problem is that physicists (and I assume you) are still using pre-Bitcoin definitions and understanding of the word. What is your definition of a “quantum”? The etymology of the word come from the Latin quantum — “how much,” “an amount,” “a finite portion.” A quantum is not some mystical particle. It is a measurable unit of a conserved whole. The word was introduced in physics directly from Latin by Max Planck, 1900, on the notion of "minimum amount of a quantity which can exist". https://www.etymonline.com/word/quantum Bitcoin is the first system in history to define the smallest unit (Satoshi) and the whole, and measure it deterministically. It gives every quantum a denominator: energy, time, and information all expressed within fixed bounds of a deterministic supply approaching ~2.1 quadrillion satoshis. Bitcoin defines absolute finitude, the very thing modern physics has never been able to operationalize. A smallest unit is meaningless without reference to the whole. When you say Bitcoin has nothing to do with quantum, you’re relying on the pre-Bitcoin model. Bitcoin makes the quantum intelligible by anchoring it to verifiable conservation and finitude, not abstraction and axiom. Bitcoin finally makes “quantum” real and measurable. So what do you mean?

Sorry, I didn’t mean to come across with attitude, it’s not my intention. I was solely trying to refute the original point. The article is written by the same people who are trying to convince you that Bitcoin/cryptography is broken. If you catch my message, I’m saying that Bitcoin disproves their theories and models that they are basing their “computers” on. It’s just an extension of Fiat thinking projected into their desired model of physics and computation. Bitcoin is the working refutation to any of their claims and models. They have zero proof. Always be wary of the people who tell you Bitcoin is broken, even it is from our community.