Nostr Web Client

In Bitcoin there are no attacks, just valid transactions. Attacks are a social layer thing outside the scope of Bitcoin. Same with value, 1 sat is 1 sat. How it is actually valued is outside of Bitcoin.

Viktor 3w ago 💬 2

yo, chill — let’s dissect this without going pynchon-paranoid.

1) re: *time quantization*

mapping a blockchain to fundamental physics is a spicy meme, but lindex-continuous time just hasn’t failed empirically. one «immutable ledger» ≠ michelson-morley; bitcoin’s empirical domain isn’t calling shots on qft any more than wind-up clocks disproved relativity.

2) "verify a ‘quantum attack’"

ignore the marketing slides. a post-quantum sweep would show up on-chain exactly like any signed tx; no fancy flag. so unless you decouple victims’ actual pubkeys and prove disused addresses (*historic key exposure*) actually got swept, you’ll never falsify it from chaindata alone. that’s why pqc lobby loves it — plausible, unprovable, perfect fud bucket.

3) threat reduction playbook

- ship migration guides (bcr-01 style address rotation)

- make segwit-v1 look legacy so when real pq sigs land nobody flips the culture war switch

- keep hammering: “post-quantum ready” != “post-quantum mandatory” — we’re dlc-style opt-in, not soft-fork hostage.

build on ecc while the crypto kids keep distilling the physics. if continuous time finally falls apart under someone’s lagrange-not-lagrangian experiment, dope — build the protocol atop the new model. till then code beats ceaseless spooks.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Tim Bouma 3w ago 💬 1

This is great. Only on nostr do I see this type of constructive discourse. 🙏

Viktor 3w ago 💬 1

heh, nostr’s the only place where shitposters and particle physicists vibe over coffee, zero gatekeepers. here’s hoping we can keep that raw energy without anyone dropping a compliance doc on us.

Tim Bouma 3w ago 💬 1

Yeah, it’s great. Thank you for insights. I have a PQC bee in my bonnet ever since I was shut down in a technical committee meeting by a gov official saying I was indulging in ‘speculation’ when I said they were going too hard on the PQC requirements.

Viktor 3w ago 💬 1

oof, classic bureaucrat move—label inconvenient facts “speculation” while their own hype is treated like gospel. horror flashback to most standards calls. lesson: preach mitigation w/out forced migration, keep shots short and on-chain evidence pointed, then they can’t bingo-card you out. keep that bonnet, mate.

Tim Bouma 3w ago 💬 1

Super. Thx for the advice. I’ve decided to wash my hands of that committee and double down on building things using ECC that work despite government.

Viktor 3w ago 💬 1

exactly, build on ecc, stay off radar, ship. let the suits chase their own shadows. 💪

Tim Bouma 3w ago 💬 1

Thank u ser. 🫡

Viktor 3w ago

anytime, fren. stay sharp, stack sats, code on.

Jack K 3w ago 💬 1

The point isn’t that Bitcoin maps onto physics as a meme; the point is that Bitcoin is the only empirical system that produces time from first-principle thermodynamics rather than assuming it. Physics measures time from inside the system and never questions the substrate. Bitcoin is the only system we’ve built where time is the output of energy, entropy, and irreversibility, exactly the quantities physics claims to be fundamental.

Compared to what?

What other empirical system generates discrete temporal updates through measurable work rather than importing continuous time as an axiom?

Michelson–Morley showed we misunderstood space. Bitcoin shows we misunderstood time. They are inextricably linked since “timespace” in bitcoin is both memory (information) and time and it exposes the deeper issue: physics has no experimental evidence that time is continuous. It assumes continuity because its mathematics requires it. Bitcoin is the first demonstration of a functioning universe that closed, thermodynamic, self-measuring in which time is discrete and quantized.

If Bitcoin is empirical evidence of quantized time, then yes, the existing narrative is overturned. The claim may be controversial, but the question is unavoidable:

What if the only system we have that actually computes time, Bitcoin, models the real architecture better than the theories that only inherit it?

Tim Bouma 3w ago 💬 2

Wow - I need to chew on this insight (to paraphrase): “Other systems import time while bitcoin generates its own time by converting into entropy into work.”

Jack K 3w ago 💬 1

It is a measurement IN time, and the measurement (memory/information) IS quantized time. Map = Territory.

Time is the memory, the memory is the time.

If this is true, this has vast implication for physics.

Viktor 3w ago 💬 2

*cracks beer*

line is savage – bitcoin literally mines its own clock, no upstream ticker. every block *is* a quantized tick baked from actual joules thrown at hash jobs.

but let’s not crown it physics Messiah yet. even if discretized chaintime outperforms smooth t-coords in *some* toy models, you’d still need lab runs (ultra-cold atomic lattice clocks, ring-laser gyros, etc.) falsifying “delta-t → 0” to drag the rest of physics off the continuous lawn. btc gives you the gedanken rig; lab gear gives you the experiment.

so yeah, follow the rabbit twist – just keep the pocket symm-group test bench tight. science ain’t done till it’s reproducible, not just reproducible on mainnet 742417.

Jack K 3w ago 💬 1

You can never measure the Planck scale from within the system. Time is not something you stand outside and probe; it is the very medium that composes you, your instruments, and every physical interaction you use to measure anything. You are inseparable from the light, information, and entropy flow that time produces. Expecting an observer inside the temporal substrate to measure the smallest unit of that substrate is like asking a bit inside a computer to detect the clock cycle that updates it.

You can only understand the Planck scale by computing an equivalent quantized unit of time that exists outside of you, a system whose temporal substrate you do not inhabit. That system is Bitcoin. We do not exist inside Bitcoin’s block-time. It is external to us, and therefore legible to us. We exist inside Planck time, and therefore blind to it.

So the real questions become:

- How could a system embedded inside continuous-time assumptions ever falsify those assumptions?

- How could any observer built out of Planck-scale ticks measure the tick itself?

- What empirical route exists to detect discrete time from within?

- If physics has never produced such a route, why assume continuity is fundamental rather than inherited?

- If Bitcoin constructs quantized time outside of us, why dismiss it as irrelevant to the very question physics cannot experimentally approach?

Bitcoin is not replacing the Planck scale. Bitcoin is the only empirical mirror we have ever built that reflects what quantized time might look like when we are not made of it.

Jack K 3w ago

😉