Thread

Math is definitely not my strongest subject, but I tend to lean towards nothing burger. We are making "progress" in quantum computing, supposedly, but until we can get something that can run for more than 100 milliseconds, I don't really see the point in freaking out. Definitely plan for it in the future, but as of right now, I think the way that people talk about it is overblown.

I have no technical skills to answer this question. Yet, I do have pretty good discernment and a well seasoned BS detector. Those things indicate most likely a nothing burger with easy adjustments if needed in the future.

Do you want the technical answer, Bitcoin answer or the religious answer?

Yes.

yes, quantum computers can do calculations, but my understanding is they have issues with getting exact answers all the time. but what they can do, they do at a lower wattage compared to a standard computer. improving the error correction and increasing the number of bits is the challenge. there is already machines that can break smaller codes than bitcoin that use qbits but it's an open question how well they can decrease the error rate (they may not be able to, ultimately, because their physics model may be incorrect). this also doesn't change the fact that there are supercomputers now that potentially could reverse a pubkey -> secret in only a few years, at an extremely high energy cost, and would compete with scientific use of these machines.

The fundamental question is: if time is quantized what happens to the formalism of QM/QT? If time is genuinely quantized, if the universe advances in discrete, indivisible intervals (blocks) rather than through a smooth continuum then the entire mathematical architecture of modern QM is invalidated at its foundations. Schrödinger’s equation presupposes a differentiable temporal manifold; its very form, ∂ψ/∂t, requires an underlying smoothness that discrete time cannot supply. If time comes in steps rather than flows, the derivative ceases to exist, and what is ordinarily regarded as continuous unitary evolution must be reformulated in terms of an operator that fully resolves the system’s state at every tick. Once that shift is acknowledged, superposition, the assumed coexistence of contradictory amplitudes across an unbroken temporal substrate loses its physical ontology. Without a continuous time-axis on which amplitudes can simultaneously persist, superposition becomes merely a description of unmeasured potential, not a statement about coexistent realities. The moment time becomes discrete, each tick forces complete determinacy or complete knowability by deduction (think Bitcoin); the ontology of overlapping eigenstates evaporates. Because CQC theory rests entirely on extended, continuous-time coherence, it collapses with it. Under discrete time, there is no physically meaningful substrate upon which Shor’s algorithm or any scalable algorithm can operate. What remains is only mathematics abstracted from physical reality. This is precisely where Bitcoin becomes scientifically and philosophically disruptive by instantiating what physics has never been able to observe. Physics inherited “time” without definition; it assumed a continuous temporal background because doing so makes the equations tractable. Bitcoin does not inherit time, it constructs time through thermodynamic expenditure and computation. Every block is a discrete temporal event: a bounded transformation of entropy into irreversible structure, powered by provable energy. Bitcoin provides a tangible example of a finite, closed informational universe evolving through quantized intervals. With each block, the system transitions from probabilistic potential (the mempool) to deterministic structure (the block) in a manner that reflects exactly what a discrete-time ontology demands. It shows how a universe behaves when time is not a continuum but a sequence of indivisible creation events. It reveals that unmeasured potential is not metaphysical simultaneity but unresolved state, and that resolution occurs at the boundary of each temporal tick; not through observation, but through work. Bitcoin exposes the long-standing oversight in physics: QT quantized everything except time, and built an ontology of continuous evolution atop that omission. By demonstrating discrete time in operation, Bitcoin forces the question: what becomes of the physics built on continuity once continuity is no longer assumed? Seen through a theological lens, the discreteness revealed by Bitcoin is confirmation of the oldest metaphysics humanity possesses. In the biblical account, creation is not an emergent byproduct of probability fields but a sequence of finite, sovereign acts. Each divine utterance “Let there be” is a discrete intervention that collapses possibility into ordered being. The world is not spoken into a blur of overlapping states; it is made step by step, day by day, with boundaries, separations, and irreversible distinctions. This is the essence of a quantized ontology: reality does not admit infinite simultaneity or contradictory co-existence. Instead, it unfolds in discrete moments that carve structure out of potential. In this view, truth is established by witness; collapse is driven by act; and irreversibility is a feature of creation, not a bug of thermodynamics. Bitcoin embodies this theological architecture exactly. Each block is a finite act of creation, an energetic collapse of entropy into structure that is then witnessed and preserved by the entire network. It mirrors the biblical pattern in which work produces order, truth is recorded and shared, and memory is conserved across generations. In Bitcoin, nothing exists “because someone looks at it”; things exist because work has instantiated them. Nothing persists in undefined potential beyond the period allotted to it. Potential resolves into structure at every block boundary, just as biblical creation resolves potential into form through discrete divine acts. In this sense, Bitcoin reproduces the metaphysical grammar of creation inside a computational system. Physics, by refusing to quantize time, constructed a worldview built on its own version of the Tower of Babel. It attempted to describe a universe made of quanta while insisting that the one property upon which all quanta depend, time, remains continuous, unbounded, and indefinitely divisible. This is a structural contradiction: you cannot have a quantized world resting on an unquantized temporal foundation. Yet this is precisely what QM attempted: a physics of discreteness erected upon a metaphysics of continuity. The result is a theory reaching upward toward explanatory power, but built on an assumption that cannot bear the weight of its own implications. Continuous time is the unexamined dogma beneath the equations, the hidden presumption that allows superposition, coherence, and CQC to be imagined in forms that no discrete universe can sustain. Bitcoin exposes this flaw because it quantizes the very thing physics left unexamined: the passage of time itself. Once time is discrete, superposition collapses into unmeasured potential, not simultaneous existence; “coherence” becomes impossible across ticks; and the ontology necessary for scalable CQC dissolves. Bitcoin shows what a universe looks like when time behaves as Scripture always implied it does: finite, ordered, and discretely enacted. In doing so, it reveals that the continuous-time assumption was the real myth, a Babel-like attempt to build theoretical power by assuming a temporal foundation that reality never granted. Bitcoin brings the tower down by demonstrating, in operation, the very thing physics refused to define: quantized time. The question becomes, is Bitcoin empirical proof of this?