Agreed

👀🇧🇷🤙

The emperor’s new clothes, the current FUD. They can’t f’ing run basic systems let alone crack the meaning of life 😂

I think It might create plenty of room for narrative attacks, which could generate a lot of FUD even if the actual quantum risk is far from imminent.

I think we should prioritize the Epstein clients Like bill Clinton gates and all the kid fuckers getting tortured for the rest of their lives Because they are already old as fuck and fixing to die Prison is not enough They need torturing Yea they might burn in hell for eternity But I think they should suffer right now

yes

Quantum is a scam. I’m sure Lopp could contribute.

Leslie wexner And the ceo of Abercrombie and fitch That got off pleading insanity To old for trial my ass They need to be tortured immediately

the cat's out of the box; https://primal.net/a/ View article →

@Jack K it’s your time to shine

@ODELL if we are serious about mass adoption, meaning the mission to turn as many people into sovereign bitcoiners practicing self custody as possible, we need to eliminate FUD fueling topics. Quantum risk has been winning the FUD boards for a while now.

Whenever the topic comes up people seem very unclear on what is actually at risk (ie exposed public keys). They also seem to mix up the cryptography keypair discussion and instead keep using the word "encryption" in reference to hashes and mining. So maybe I'm just an idiot but I don't think most people know what they're talking about. I agree we should discuss what is happening with exposed pubkeys.

We eliminate it by fixing it

For the layman Bitcoiner: QC/QT is built on an incoherent theory of fractional commitment, the belief that unmeasured potential states can be treated as real physical states, that superposition is a kind of “double-spending” of existence. All of it rests on a model that never defines what existence or measurement actually is, no definition for time. A theory Bitcoin has been openly falsifying for the last sixteen years without any recognition. The double spend problem is a physics problem. It’s time we actually stand behind Bitcoin and what its physics reveal. Bitcoin is losing the narrative war to a fiat theory of physics. View quoted note →

🫡

Probably better than talking about filters that don’t work

Well said, I agree 100%. It's a common pushback I get from others who are considering it.

I agree, it's the reassurance that people are after I think.

If I'm not mistaken, quantum-proof cryptography is not difficult to set up. It just hasn't been implemented yet because of a few factors that make it not practical (or necessary) to use today.

I'm guessing when the risk is real we won't know about it until 10 years later. "An ounce of prevention it worth a pound of cure". Maybe check out FOKS.pub as a starting point. 👀

This is a great way to say it. Quantum is the new alchemy. It appears that whatever these machines are actually doing, if we had a sane theory to describe it, there seems to be a physical limit of something like 100 logical qbits anyway, before the error correction introduces more noise than reduces. Not enough to ever crack a key.

We need to get better at explaining why we are not doing this, to answer the quantum FUD, without actually wasting time or trashing the network by actually doing anything about it now. Quantum resistant algos are far less efficient, DRAMATICALLY larger in data size and not proven. There seems to be a physical limit of something like 100 logical qbits and I am very skeptical that a meaningful quantum computer will ever exist. The theory itself is highly questionable. View quoted note →

Bro the dollar is dying, quantum is just the cover story

🔥🔥🔥👌

risk happens fast though

Quantum is the new alchemy of fiat. It’s alchemy because nothing about its foundational claims is verifiable. The entire enterprise rests on objects “qubits” that no one outside the black box is permitted to observe, measure, or confirm. Their existence is asserted, not demonstrated and their coherence is inferred without proof. Trust down the whole stack. It is fiat physics: an IOU for a particle you are told is real, but that cannot be independently verified without destroying the very claim you are asked to believe. Bitcoin stands in absolute contrast to this. Bitcoin provides public, thermodynamic proof at every step. The entropy spent is measurable. The information produced is auditably conserved. The transformation is irreversible, visible, and verifiable by anyone. Bitcoin grounds its claims in physical commitment. It does not ask for belief; it demands verification. It demands you to verify the proof of conservation of energy and information at each block of time. Quantum computing by comparison is an architecture of trust masquerading as science. Its entire theoretical framework treats unmeasured potentials as real physical states. It assumes simultaneity without defining a quantum of time. It assumes existence without defining a measurement. It treats probabilistic amplitudes as physical superpositions, even though no experiment has ever resolved the smallest unit of temporal change needed to make the word “simultaneous” meaningful, Planck Time. Calling the states of qubits “real” is like calling every unconfirmed transaction in the mempool a spendable UTXO. It collapses the category distinction between potential and actual. It is the same conceptual error as fractional-reserve banking: multiplying an uncommitted base unit by narrative and assumption instead of proof. QT would claim Satoshi did not solve the double spend problem; nonsense. Bitcoin exposes the incoherence of this worldview because it demonstrates how physical reality actually works. No state “exists” without entropy committed. No structure is real without measurable, irreversible work behind it. No timeline emerges without resolving uncertainty into information through thermodynamic expenditure. Anything real can be verified. Bitcoin is the only open system in the world that computes the isomorphism between energy and information in real time. It unifies Boltzmann entropy and Shannon entropy into a single measurable object: a block. Each block is a physical statement about what exists because it is a record of what was thermodynamically committed. That process is observable, verifiable, and independent of anyone’s claims. Quantum computing on the other hand gives you none of this. No proof, no measurement, no conservation. Just promises, grant money, opaque experiments, and the insistence that you should “trust the science,” even though the science has yet to demonstrate a single stable, scalable, independently verified qubit. Bitcoin gives us the first verifiable standard for energy, information, and time and once you have a real standard, you’re no longer obligated to treat unmeasured claims as knowledge. Bitcoin gives you truth because it forces every claim to bear the cost of physical reality. Quantum computing gives you narrative because it cannot survive that cost. If one of these systems is going to rewrite our understanding of physics, it isn’t the one hiding behind closed labs, NDAs, and unverifiable claims. It’s the one proving itself every ten minutes in open daylight. The threat is us listening to their narratives about “upgrades” to what isn’t broken.

@npub1s5yq...6q7z latest pod on quantum was something. Sounds like we are fucked in the next 3-15 years. Maybe fix that ‘time’ bug at the same time so we can quit talking about it. Thanks in advance. SHSS

Forgot to say it, but Bitcoin is the theory/model/language to understand what they are saying. You should be calling bullshit.

i think rotating addresses are secure enough right now. we just need to apply similar concepts on lightning too. no need for another address type before something happens.

If it's about countering FUD, just point at the quantum BIPs and say it's fixed. Don't waste more energy on countering FUD than the FUD costs to make. If you really care about the quantum issue, demand a canary. If a QC cracks an 8bit private key, it's time to implement the BIPs. Proof of work, not proof of FUD.

new y2k

I can’t agree that Quantum risk has anything whatsoever to do with this breakdown. But I also agree we need to prioritize mitigations, since it’s become apparent most Core devs are moonlighting on other projects… The question markets might be asking is: “Who’s at the Helm?” And “Where are the Maxis defending Bitcoin?” Because the Institutions don’t know shit about Bitcoin, but they do follow the Maxis. I know, because I used to be one of them. They don’t follow shit-coiners. They know how to read the room, and they know that this Bitcoin Core bullshit has caught the people who proclaimed to know Bitcoin best off-guard. And now they’re going to gold.

People are just rationalizing the price action of the entire market on the basis of the single assets they own.

PSA: The quantum apocalypse isn't coming A cryptographically-relevant quantum computer is physically impossible: real hardware hits a fundamental back-reaction limit at a few hundred high-fidelity logical qubits due to size-dependent noise from the error-correction process itself. Shor on 256-bit ECDSA requires thousands to tens of thousands of near-perfect ones. The gap is physical and insurmountable. The actual use-cases for “quantum computers” are: - Gassing up investors with science jargon - Building a regulatory moat - Scaring people away from battle-tested open-source cryptography Implementing quantum resistance would be very bad for Bitcoin: - Dilithium2 / Dilithium3 in P2TR - Falcon-512 / Falcon-1024 in P2TR - SPHINCS+-128f in P2TR - ECDSA + Dilithium2 hybrid (legacy/SegWit/Taproot) - ECDSA + Falcon-512 hybrid (legacy/SegWit/Taproot) - New lattice or hash-based spend paths - New QR address formats / commitments - Signature size 9–240× larger - Pubkey size 27–40× larger - Typical spend 15–50× higher fees forever - Witness data 15–50× bigger - UTXO set 10–20× larger within years - Validation time 5–20× slower - Far more complex code, not battle tested - Permanently higher fees (15–50× per tx) - Lightning channel closes 15–50× more expensive - Pruning nodes die (UTXO bloat kills them) - Full-node storage +10–20× in a few years - Increased centralization pressure - Permanent consensus & DoS risk increase - New critical bugs and side-channels Some of the work people are doing to show that we COULD add QR, IF we needed to, is probably helpful to fight the FUD. But don't buy the hype and don't get bullied by the quantum mafia hype machine. #Bitcoin View quoted note →

Yes, that should be in the Bitcoin’s roadmap. Equally, it’s quite interesting that most of the time quantum computer risk is mentioned people refer to BTC, not traditional finance or encrust ion mechanism. It’s very one sided concern in that regards. Is that BTC bias or is Bitcoin indeed more exposed?

Everyone that's not sleeping will transfer and the left coins become the biggest prize pool incentive to research quantum, everyone wins.

I don't buy the quantum hype or risk at all

Agreed. Solve it now then we can get back to yelling at each other, since we'll then be guaranteed at least a few more decades of that.

Child porn in Op_Return is mad bearish.

Quntum isn't coming View quoted note →

Once we start to financial institutions and other national security sensitive industries freakout, I wouldn't waste much time worrying about the threat

isn't bitcoin the network that is the safest against that? i don't get why people are freaking out over bitcoin being vulnerable to quantum because all the other systems are 1m times more vulnerable? i feel like people don't understand bitcoin or quantum when they say it's at risk without saying that everything else is more at risk?

Every BIP is a bigger threat to Bitcoin than quantum.

The experts disagree. CRQC 5% chance in under 5 years, 50% chance in under 10. Reference: Quantum Threat Timeline Report 2024.

The only people worried about quantum computing don’t understand quantum mechanics

Yet, nobody can understand quantum mechanics without Bitcoin.

The experts who lose their funding, fame and lavish salaries if they admit the ceiling is there?

Diverse range of experts from both academia and industry, with a large range of timelines, some including pretty much never. You know the report I'm talking about?

Spam and quantum are not the real risk in bitcoin. Privacy is.