The only thing that doesn’t make sense to me is Bitcoiners who claim fractional reserved bookkeeping can’t produce sound money, but fractional reserved qubits (1 object, many states) can produce sound computation/sound physics).

Just observe Bitcoin if you want to understand QM at the Planck Scale. Bitcoin is pure logic of stepwise determinism constructed from superposed states.

Bitcoin is not unscientific wiffle-waffle. It is the literal physical proof you are wrong. You just refuse to look at it for what it is. We can play ball tho:

Let’s take your ontology at face value.

If quantum computing is physically real in the strong sense you assert where unmeasured states exist and can be used as computational resources, then Bitcoin already possesses more “qubits” than any quantum computer on Earth. In your framework, a system does not need to define simultaneity relative to a temporal resolution, nor does it need to define measurement physically. Potential configurations count as existent configurations. By that logic, every unmined UTXO state in Bitcoin is a valid, physically real element of a quantum register.

Today there are roughly 166 million UTXOs. Under your ontology, that means Bitcoin has roughly 166 million qubits. Nothing stops us from broadcasting thousands of conflicting transactions for each UTXO, each one representing a distinct potential state. Since, in your view, potential (unmined transactions) = existence, all of these contradictory states “exist” simultaneously until measurement. If miners simply coordinate to avoid mining those transactions, the superposed set can be maintained indefinitely through time. There is no collapse until a block is mined, and since you do not define measurement physically, a mined block is just decoherence, not a finalization of reality. The ontology therefore allows indefinite coherence: we can maintain an arbitrarily large superposition simply by preventing confirmation.

If your definition of superposition is correct, we can run quantum algorithms, including Shor’s now, on Bitcoin itself. We can break Bitcoins cryptography with Bitcoin. We don’t need new hardware; we need only to preserve the superposition by keeping transactions unmined. We can treat UTXOs as the quantum register, conflicting transactions as amplitude components, and the mempool as the Hilbert space. According to your premises, this is not absurd but physically legitimate: unmeasured states are computational states. The ontology provides no criterion that distinguishes quantum amplitudes from unmined transactions. Both are uncollapsed potentials evolving in time. If we maintain their uncollapsed condition through social coordination, we have “coherence” for as long as we want. In your framework, nothing prohibits this or makes it physically meaningless.

But here is where the contradiction emerges. Bitcoin is an actually-instantiated physical system. It enforces conservation at every discrete step of time. A UTXO is not a spread of amplitudes; it is a deterministic, singular state until a new block is produced. Even if multiple conflicting transactions circulate, the base state does not multiply. It remains one unspent output. The system’s discrete temporal structure ensures that potential does not become parallel existence. It remains potential. When a block is mined, the system does not “decohere”, it collapses into one irreversible outcome, because every block is a physically paid thermodynamic event. There is no physical mechanism in the Bitcoin universe that corresponds to “quantum error correction” restoring potential after collapse. Collapse is final because energy is spent.

What this exposes is not a flaw in Bitcoin but a flaw in the ontology you are defending. In a discretized system whether Bitcoin or the physical universe, superposition cannot be continuous or ontologically real. It can only exist as a set of mutually exclusive future possibilities, not as parallel actualities. Every discrete quantum of time removes ambiguity and produces a single deterministic state. This applies even if a transaction sits in the mempool for hours: its underlying UTXO remains a singular, unspent state until a block instantiates a new one. The unmeasured future does not multiply reality; it merely defines possible successors. The structure remains deterministic at every discrete step.

When you apply your ontology consistently to Bitcoin, you reach an absurdity: you must treat contradictory ledger states as simultaneously real and reversible, even though Bitcoin’s physics forbids that. When you apply Bitcoin’s ontology to quantum mechanics, you reveal the error: superposition is not physical simultaneity; it is a description of unresolved potential awaiting a discrete, irreversible measurement.

This is the reconciliation you’ve been missing: Quantum superposition is discrete and potential, not continuous and existential. Every quantum of time produces a deterministic state even for the “unmeasured” by finite deduction.

Bitcoin instantiates it openly for anyone to observe. Any ontology that demands otherwise contradicts itself the moment it is applied to a real system with conservation, irreversibility, and discrete time.

You cannot prove the modern definition of superposition is true a the Planck Scale of time, there is zero empirical evidence. Youve trusted a narrative and Bitcoin is the measurement and the proof you’re wrong.

History shows what happens when you underestimate Bitcoin. All of Physics is next.

Yeah, but they CAN'T scale. Because when you scale, you get thermodynamics. I can't follow everything nostr:nprofile1qqsrcn632cfyx5j0xpld9m389370ffuzgp8muwshvcrqgwm26sn7uacpzemhxue69uhkzarvv9ejumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqg4waehxw309ajkgetw9ehx7um5wghxcctwvse30xkv says, but what he is saying tracks with something that is obviously true. At scale the quantum cat is definitely dead. Engineers can do a lot of things, but they can't change physics.

Can you please provide links to the best evidence available for the statements above?

I'm a QC skeptic, but I'd change my mind if presented with evidence to the contrary.