"ethos"... thats not an argument. I care about managing risk and whether you like it or not there is risk there although I would tend to dismiss it like you have. the cohort of people that feel pressured by this perceived threat will create a backup and with how fractured the network is I don't believe we would see a fork until there was a repeatable provable threat.
Discussion
The risk is binary: either the threat is real and demonstrable or it isn’t. What’s being proposed here isn’t risk management, it’s risk projection. Signaling an “update” to an unverified threat imposes real social, economic, and technical risk onto the network. It is seemingly corruption of the verification standard itself.
The proper way to manage risk in Bitcoin is not to pre-react to speculative physics, but to verify the threat with the same rigor we verify every transaction, block, and rule. If the foundation of the quantum threat is built on unverifiable claims, the real danger isn’t the attack, it’s how we respond to the story.
All I’m saying is don’t trust, verify.
I care a gun incase I get robbed. I don't see a robber but I still project that he might come. I could get falsely startled and shoot at someone coming up and asking for money. that's also a risk but doesn't mean I shouldn't care a gun. I should just manage both risks.
I understand your point and I agree. Carrying a gun is managing a demonstrable risk; robbery is physically possible, observable, and historically precedented. Quantum computing, as presented today, is not in that category. It’s a theoretical projection built on assumptions that cannot be observed, measured, or verified.
The foundation of quantum computing rests on an illusion; superposition as a real, persistent state across time. But what if superposition is not a property of the particle, but a limitation of our measurement? A smear in our perception of time, not in the particle itself.
In every true quantum system, all outcomes are deterministic at each timestep; Bitcoin especially. What appears as superposition is simply our inability to resolve transformations at the quantum resolution of time (like watching Bitcoin without seeing individual blocks and claiming a UTXO is both spent and unspent). That’s not physics; that’s blindness to the ledger.
Superposition across a quantum timestep is a logical double spend. And nowhere in physics has this ever been proven; not at Planck time, not at the discrete quantum resolution. It is inferred from aggregated probabilities across ~1.8x10^22 timesteps in a singular measurement, not observed in real-time transitions. It’s theory masquerading as truth, built atop abstraction, not observation.
To build a threat model atop superposition is to build on sand. And to prepare Bitcoin for such a threat is to inject fiction into the only system that perfectly separates truth from theory.
Do you prepare yourself for fictitious threat models? Maybe all it takes is a good story to be a believer.
yeah you're right, there is a difference. good points