No, neither will be hacked by one.
There is no threat because the threat assumes a continuous model of time that does not exist. Here is your proof time is quantized and discrete:
https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000000580251fe06132af666fac9b6bb834d9836cfa9f42053
Please go ask an AI (if you are not capable yourself) about what happens to QM/QC formalism and what superposition and decoherence mean with a discrete and quantized model of time instead of a continuous model and report back. Be sure to ask it how you take the derivative over Schrödinger’s eqn with discrete and quantized time.
Okay so now we're getting somewhere. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum wallet keys are equal in this regard (can never be cracked by a quantum machine). Let's put a pin there.
Next does this extend to ALL wallets from all blockchains? Or are there some blockchain wallets with private keys that a quantum computer MIGHT be able to input the public key for and then have the quantum computer output the private key (crack it)?
No, I’m literally saying your model of a quantum computer can’t exist *IF* time is quantized and discrete. There is no threat model at all.
Go ahead and ask AI yourself. Post the question and prompt here open for everyone to see. This is not some bullshit claim.
We can disagree *IF* Bitcoin is empirical of quantized time, but you cannot disagree my first claim. Any physicist would admit that if it was true because the math simply breaks down and meanings of observations change.
Hang on, rewind, this is important. You said, categorically, that the current wallet keys for both Bitcoin and Ethereum wallets will never by cracked by a quantum computer.
I'm asking does that apply to all wallet keys from all known blockchains? Solana, Kaspa, Quai, Dogecoin...
You surely have an answer for this.
There is no threat IF time is quantized and discrete.
So basically you don’t believe that quantum computers exist at all, it any capacity, that the whole thing is either a hoax or a big misunderstanding.
It's either that or you believe they do exist, and quantum computation is real, but just not very powerful vis a vis these use cases.
I’m saying that if time is quantized and discrete, then the mathematical substrate required for computation does not exist in the way the formalism assumes.
QC relies on continuous-time unitary evolution to define superposition, phase accumulation, interference etc. If time has a smallest indivisible tick, that formalism breaks; this is well known in mathematical physics and has been the core known problem. Differential equations cease to be fundamental; coherence across infinitesimal intervals is undefined with an atomic tick. What remains are discrete update rules, not a scalable computational substrate.
So QC as a model of computation with asymptotic power (e.g. Shor), requires an assumption about time that may not be true. If time is discrete, QC reduces to an effective, limited approximation, not a fundamentally new computational class.
That’s not controversial. Discrete time breaking continuous-time QM/QC is a known result. You’re welcome to fact-check that. I will wait for you to do so.
So what is your actual position on quantum advantage?
a) It does not exist, it is a hoax
b) It does not exist, it is a misunderstanding, misreading, etc.
c) It does exist, it's a real thing, but is never going to be powerful enough to crack keys and such (works but lack of use case)
Which is it?
I don’t know why this is being framed as a spectrum of opinions. The outcome is binary.
Either time is continuous (infinitesimally divisible at the physical level) in which case the quantum formalism is internally consistent and large-scale quantum advantage is, in principle, real.
OR time is quantized and discrete (physically indivisible at a fundamental level) in which case the formalism underlying quantum computation collapses, and so do the claims built on it.
The outcome is binary dependent on the nature of time itself.
Every existing model of physics quietly assumes the first. We have to mention that assumption has never been proven, it’s assumed for mathematical convenience. I’m pointing out that the second outcome is not only possible, but empirically instantiated in Bitcoin.
Bitcoin provides an observable object of time. It produces discrete, indivisible temporal states (blocks) by resolving a bounded entropy search space (nonce & difficulty) into a single admissible outcome (a block of time) through irreversible work. It is a global, decentralized measurement process, an experiment run approximately every 10 minutes that anyone can independently verify with perfect fidelity. There are no intermediate states, no fractional blocks, no continuous interpolation. Time advances only when work collapses entropy into structure. Causality is quantized. These are my observations.
If that observation is correct, it doesn’t just challenge quantum computing, it challenges all physics built on continuous time. That’s not anti-empirical. Bitcoin is empirical in the strongest sense: you can verify every single block of time yourself from Genesis. If that’s not enough to question an unproven axiom, then the issue isn’t evidence, it’s just a sunken commitment to a prior model that nobody in physics can afford to be wrong.
Tick Tock Next Block Joe, Bitcoin waits for no one.
