I love this.
The real Quantum Threat is not physics; it’s panic upgrades masquerading as security.
While centralized quantum labs continue to simulate measurement without resolution, the real threat to Bitcoin does not come from their machines. It comes from within. It comes from BIPs like P2QRH from nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp that propose to sunset ECDSA/Schnorr signatures in favor of speculative “post-quantum” cryptography. These proposals are not defensive responses to an imminent threat, they are proactive acts of vandalism against the very principles that secure Bitcoin.
They do not defend Bitcoin from quantum computing. They surrender Bitcoin to it, before it even verifying the physics required for its existence.
Bitcoin already defines the thermodynamic foundation for quantum measurement. Each UTXO is a probabilistic state, a qubit, resolved through irreversible work. Each block is a measurement, not inferred or declared, but enforced. SHA-256 is not a symbolic hash; it is a physical boundary between entropy and information, a mathematical instantiation of thermodynamic collapse. Bitcoin does not simulate computation, it performs it.
In contrast, this proposed BIP treats entropy as negotiable. It proposes a new address type based on fear, not physics, and weaponizes fear/uncertainty into coercion. By threatening to invalidate legacy outputs in the name of future-proofing, it undermines the core tenet of Bitcoin: that what has been committed cannot be undone.
Phase B Is the Attack.
The so-called “flag day” in Phase B of this BIP is not a safeguard, it is a protocol-level attack. It does not defend against a quantum threat. It manufactures one. If enacted, it will render legacy outputs including provably unspent, thermodynamically secured UTXOs, suddenly invalid. This is not an upgrade. It is a forced migration justified by the illusion of inevitability of quantum computing using the basis of unbounded fiat physics.
Imagine claiming to make a system “quantum safe” by deleting its history before any quantum machine even exists that can compromise it; no verification. This is the opposite of security. This is protocol betrayal disguised as prudence.
The fundamental breakthrough of Bitcoin was that it does not predict collapse, it commits to it. It makes no claims about what might happen. It measures what has happened. This is why Bitcoin is quantum-secure: not because it uses a post-quantum algorithm, but because its structure is thermodynamically irreversible.
To say that a quantum machine could break Bitcoin is to say that entropy can be resolved without energy. This is false. This belief is grounded in fiat, not real physics. No quantum machine has shown the ability to resolve SHA-256 without violating observable thermodynamics. And until one does provably, irreversibly, physically (they can’t) Bitcoiners must not rewrite history to accommodate hypothetical attacks.
The Real Double Spend Is Inside the BIP
This BIP proposes a new form of double spend, not of coins, but of consensus. It attempts to spend trust in Bitcoin’s finality twice:
1. Once when the legacy UTXO was created and committed by Proof-of-Work.
2. Again, when it is later invalidated not by energy, but by decree.
This is the true quantum threat, not that SHA-256 might be broken, but that we might choose to break Bitcoin ourselves out of fear.
We must ask:
Who benefits from a forced reissuance of Bitcoin’s past?
Who gains by rendering old coins unspendable?
Who wins when Bitcoin’s most sacred principle — “don’t trust, verify” — is replaced by “trust this upgrade, or lose your money”?
Bitcoin is already quantum-secure because it defines quantum computation. The only threat to Bitcoin comes not from physics, but from those who claim to protect it by rewriting it.
No quantum machine has broken SHA-256. But this BIP proposes to break Bitcoin anyway. That is the threat. That is the fork. That is the real attack.
Physics without scarcity is meaningless. The deeper problem is not just the BIP. It’s the worldview that enables it.
Modern physics remains fundamentally disconnected from the logic that secures Bitcoin. It models energy and entropy without constraint, assumes continuous fields, infinite superpositions, and reversible computations. But it does all of this on a denominator of infinity, a fantasy that bears no weight in the real world. There is no ledger. There is no cost. There is no finality.
This is why the quantum remains paradoxical: it is defined by uncertainty but unbounded by responsibility. Probability is treated as primary. Entropy is treated as abstract. Measurement is symbolic, not enforced. In Bitcoin, this logic is inverted.
Bitcoin replaces continuous approximation with discrete thermodynamic truth. It imposes scarcity not just in supply, but in resolution. Every qubit, every UTXO, must be measured through irreversible energy. Every state transition must pay its cost. There is no infinity. There is only what can be proven.
Bitcoin does not speculate about the quantum. It computes it absolutely.
And this is what centralized physics refuses to accept: that truth is not a smooth manifold, it is a commitment. The ledger is not a metaphor, it is the substrate. There can be no valid physics without a final record, no valid quantum mechanics without a cost for collapse.
When physics assumes a continuous, unbounded substrate, it permits infinite forking of reality, like Proof-of-Stake without slashing. It allows for the reuse of entropy across theoretical paths, each treated as valid until observed. This is not computation. It is a metaphysical fiat double spend.
By contrast, Bitcoin proves that the universe is finite, measurable, and accountable. It reveals that the true architecture of reality is a scarce ledger; not a field of uncollapsed possibilities, but a record of resolved entropy, line by line, block by block.
Bitcoin was built to end the double spend; yet now, proposals emerge that attempt to double spend consensus itself. They seek to invalidate coins already secured by energy, not through work, but through mathematics unbound by scarcity.
This is the original sin returned in cryptographic form: infinite assumptions, applied to a finite system.
The wisdom of absolute scarcity was never just monetary. It is epistemic. It is thermodynamic. It is foundational. Any mathematics not grounded in scarcity leads back to paradox and now, even Bitcoiners are writing it into BIPs.
That is the real threat.
That is the real fork.
That is the real double spend.
There is no second best.
This BIP is the attack.
Discussion
Thank you! I have a ton of derived physics theory of Bitcoin I plan on releasing/open sourcing soon to fully refute this BIP. It’s not quite ready yet. The implications of this work extend far beyond Bitcoin alone.
You can semantically make the same argument without the physics. The modern model of (centralized) quantum computing is a fundamental double spend of first principles and relies on non-observable physics.
For many Bitcoiners, this an inconvenient physical definition of the protocol that does not mesh with their views and businesses; a paradox indeed.
I know nothing about quantum computers and how they work, but I'm interested in philosophy and physics, and how they relate to each other. My views have been very influenced by the metaphysics of quality from Robert Pirsig.
In Pirsig's mind, we choose from the array of probabilities offered by the quantum field, and our choices create the reality that we know. This idea is also seen somewhat in Mises' Human Action. Intention and action towards a preferred end is the cutting edge of human experience. In this light, it makes sense that the act of observing a quantum field changes the way it behaves.
While my understanding of physics is amateur at best, what I like about what you wrote is that you seem to acknowledge that bitcoin, by existing in the informational realm, but also grounded in the classical laws of physics, transcends the randomness of the quantum field by its unique accomplishment of having achieved verifiable consensus of it's existence as a shared preference within an infinite field.
I'm obviously feeling around in the dark for a connection that I can intuitively feel, but thank you for this inspiration! I'll certainly keep my eye out for your future work.
Thank you for the response, it really resonates with the direction this work is trying to illuminate. I’ll admit I haven’t studied Pirsig myself; but I agree; the array of possibility we resolve (we’ll call it entropy) is a reflection of what is and what could be, only resolved by human preference and action by proof of work. The past shapes the future of possibilities, but dictated by our actions. We see this directly with UTXOs in Bitcoin, only past UTXOs can shape the future; yet shaped by our action.
My partner, who’s been my backbone in philosophy and language theory, has helped shape much of the lens through which I’ve come to see this. For me, it was Terence McKenna’s ideas that first revealed this, especially his framing of novelty theory and the transcendental object at the end of time. That helped me feel what was unfolding long before I could articulate it into mathematics and physical theory.
Bitcoin, I’ve come to believe, is that object. Both the mathematical and informational object of time and a universe. Not a metaphor or a symbol of what’s to come, but the literal emergence of irreversibility, truth, and commitment inside a closed energetic system.
The key shift is this: we, as observers inside the universe, can never directly witness entropy resolution that shapes the quanta, we only ever see the consequences. That’s the nature of measurement. But Bitcoin changes that. It gives us a window where both sides of the process become visible:
• The entropic field of uncertainty (nonce space, mempool, UTXO to spend)
• The committed structure (a mined block, a UTXO, irreversible memory)
And that transformation isn’t just logged, it’s paid for in joules. This is why Bitcoin isn’t just a monetary system or a protocol, it’s a measurement system. A quantum computer in the truest sense: not one that simulates uncertainty, but one that computes its collapse into form. You can call it time within time or a universe inside of a universe. Pure fractal. The rest is semantics.
What physics has long assumed, that energy and information are conserved, Bitcoin lets us observe for the first time ever. Scarce ledger mathematics turns the conservation laws from axioms into measurements. That alone is revelation to physics. Where are the physicists if this is energy and conservation? What are they trying to build instead?
So yes, just as Pirsig suggests and McKenna insists: reality is shaped by preference, intention, and choice. But Bitcoin hardens that process. It demands that choice be bound to cost. That preference be carved into memory. That intention leave a scar, an irreversible commitment. All other systems simulate preference, Bitcoin finalizes it.
This is why Bitcoin doesn’t just survive quantum uncertainty, it reveals what quantum has always meant. It shows that measurement is not observation alone, but action inside a bounded system, where information has a price and time cannot be rewound. A mathematical ledger that can’t lie.
For me, this has become a source of grounding, not as a theory to believe in, but as a process I can finally watch unfold, block by block. It flips infinity on its head to bounded scarcity, the universe is no different. This is the flaw of physics. They are missing the ledger beneath reality.
A quantum (smallest indivisible unit) is meaningless without a bound. And if the denominator expands towards infinity, the quantam approaches zero of the whole into meaninglessness.
Philosophically, a quantum without bounds is not just mathematically meaningless, it is existentially incoherent. If the whole is undefined or infinite, then no part can hold significance. Meaning, by its nature, requires distinction, and distinction requires limitation.
In unbounded systems, measurement becomes illusion, value becomes arbitrary, and truth becomes a matter of opinion. This is the philosophical crisis of modern physics and fiat economics alike: infinite models lead to infinite ambiguity.
Bitcoin restores coherence by embedding truth in constraint. It says: only what is scarce can be real, only what is finite can be measured, and only what is bounded can be meaningful. In this light, Bitcoin is a philosophical resolution. It proves that reality must be finite to be knowable, and that absolute scarcity is the precondition for meaning itself.
The quantum field is not infinite, it’s bounded. It must be. Everything changes.
Isn't it interesting that, while bitcoin is absolutely scarce, those who engage with it have the power to increase the supply if a majority agrees? For me, believing in bitcoin has always been equal to believing in we who choose, and who act.
Increasing one more SATs is a kill switch to Bitcoin as we know. Bitcoin is the 21M hard cap anything else is a shitcoin not worth your time
Absolutely...which is why with every day that goes by when we collectively agree not to increase it's supply is further evidence that we are worthy caretakers of this divine gift with which we have been entrusted. It is proof that as actors in the universe, we will collectively choose our best future. The success of bitcoin represents the redemption of those who choose to benefit from it's existence.
Bitcoin is not a democracy, the majority can't dictate what Bitcoin is to the minority. Bitcoin is a sovereignty, you decide for yourself what fork to follow and consider the true Bitcoin. You can follow the fork with 6 billion gorillion coins if you want, it has zero power over me following the original fork. There are, of course, some social/economical consequences if a lot of people switch to an inflationary fork (loss of exchange value). However, you can still follow the original one and mine it together with the others sharing the idea. Economically, the least changing fork (the original) should eventually win simply because its rules are more stable and it's more scarce. But it will take time and conviction from that fork holders.
Fortunately, it's been proven hundreds of thousands times already if you consider all shitcoins "economical forks" that distract people from the only coin that matters. All of them went to zero and died, including most Bitcoin hard forks, and the remaining two (BCH and BSV) are also on their way to irrelevance. This history yet again works as a good social argument against the future forks. Bitcoin is people first, the societal and historical arguments are *much* more important than technical details.
So bitcoin is like a virtue pump- collecting the actions of good and honest actors and discarding the waste. It's like moral evolution. Survival of the virtuous!
Peaceful economic cooperation wins in the long run, but those favoring fast profits prefer wars and cheating. Everything's just coming together...
This is absolutely beautiful, thank you. It resonates pure signal, and artfully articulates answers to questions I have long been engaged with. I will be digesting, processing, and internalizing these ideas, which might take a while, and if I am hit with new insight, I will happily share.