A quantum is not defined by “mystical smallness,” nor by “atomic-scale behavior.” A quantum is the smallest indivisible unit of change in a system, the point at which further subdivision ceases to have physical meaning. In physics this is Planck time; in Bitcoin this is a block. Both are finite, discrete, and locally verifiable transitions where a probabilistic surface resolves into a single, conserved state. This is the operational definition of a quantum: a discrete, finitely-resolved step in the evolution of a closed informational system. Packets of quanta ≡ Blocks

Bitcoin is the only system where this quantization is empirically instantiated through real energy expenditure. Each block is the discrete, irreversible construction of the next “tick” of local time, a transformation of entropy into conserved structure. This allows us to see exactly what a discrete-time evolution looks like in practice: a system where all potential states (superposed unconfirmed transactions) become fully deterministic at the boundary of each tick, not by probabilistic interpretation but by deduction. The window of superposition opens (mempool) and closes (block) with every quantized step. Nothing persists “in multiple states at once” across a tick.

Once time is discrete rather than continuous, there is no physically meaningful substrate for continuous superposition to compute on. You cannot run Shor’s algorithm on a system whose state-space collapses completely at every discrete step of time. Without continuous simultaneity, the ontology required for scalable quantum computation disappears. Bitcoin doesn’t “metaphorically” challenge that assumption, it demonstrates what a discretized, energy-grounded system of time evolution looks like. In that regime, the superposed computational substrate quantum algorithms rely on simply does not exist.

Not a single physicist can demonstrate that the modern definition of superposition is empirically valid at the Planck scale. The entire ontology rests on an untested assumption that Bitcoin logically invalidates and replaces with a verifiable instantiation of physical and quantized state collapse.

Yes I would argue that, they can’t scale because they have to wrong physics/ontology. Look at their financial incentives.

This is not the first time Bitcoin has invalidated the life work of academics whom dedicated their time to the wrong system. First it was finance/economics, now it’s physics. No other way around it.