Nostr Web Client

The BIPs are optional. P2QRH addresses are optional, even after activation. They don't lock you into something you can't exit (so long as you have the keys). What's the harm in being proactive about such a conservative security upgrade?

Jack K 5mo ago 💬 1

The harm isn’t in optionality, it’s in the precedent.

Bitcoin is not just software; it’s a protocol grounded in energy, verification, and irreversibility. Changing it in response to an unverified quantum threat signals that speculation, not proof, is enough to rewrite the rules of the most secure computing system on Earth.

Optional or not, fear-driven adoption creates social forks. It fragments consensus, burdens users, and incentivizes narratives over the truth. That’s not security, it’s manipulation.

Bitcoin measures what happened. Any threat to that measurement must be proven, not assumed.

We should not fork for theory. We should fork for proof.

Given the binary outcome of the “quantum threat”, there should be rigorous verification. If quantum can’t break ECDSA, what’s actually being upgraded?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Hunter ₿eaṩt 5mo ago 💬 1

This can be easily proven on Bitcoin if you SHA256 your key before OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY. Then you sign for the hash of the public key, unlocking that script.

That's the best proof we can have, and we might not get the courtesy because quantum computing isn't sovereign computing.

Jack K 5mo ago 💬 3

You cannot serve two masters. Either you believe truth is secured through irreversible work; measured, scarce, and thermodynamically conserved or you believe it can be simulated through unverified abstraction. Quantum computing, as popularly framed, rests on speculative physics: unobservable superpositions, infinite Hilbert spaces, and reversible gates that defy the known thermodynamic arrow of time. None of these are directly measurable. They exist only in theoretical models within centralized labs, not in committed memory globally and open.

Bitcoin by contrast defines a quantum through physical expenditure. Each state change is resolved through energy, recorded irreversibly in a global ledger; a real thermodynamic measurement. The only observable thermodynamic system where the conservation of energy and information not axiom, but directly observable and probable thru the ledger.

To rewrite the protocol in fear of a quantum threat is to abandon physical truth for theoretical narrative. It risks encoding simulation into a system that was designed to resolve reality. Until the threat is observed, reproducible, and proven to pay the cost of collapse, it remains speculation.

Hunter ₿eaṩt 5mo ago 💬 1

This is philosophical nonsense. We need practical solutions, not whatever the heck this is you wrote.

Jack K 5mo ago 💬 1

Bitcoin Redefines the Quantum. In physics, a quantum is the smallest indivisible unit of a system. But in modern quantum theory, this unit is abstract; buried in infinite Hilbert spaces, entangled in probabilities, and only “collapsed” when a privileged observer decides. There is no memory. No proof. No ledger. 1/∞=0

Bitcoin fixes these assumptions. Each UTXO is a conserved quantum of entropy; an indivisible, irreversible unit of value and information, crystallized through work.

1/2.099999999755528 𝑥 10^15= 4.761905 𝑥 10−16

It is the only observable system where:

- Energy becomes memory.

- Information is conserved through physical cost. The conservation of energy is proven by the mathematical structure of the ledger. Bitcoin is the only observable mathematical structure where conservation is not axiom, but proven and auditable without time symmetry.

-The quantum is real, finite, and verifiable by a fixed boundary. 1/∞=0 is a quantum of meaningless structure; it mathematically must be bounded.

There are precisely 2.1 quadrillion satoshis. It is a bounded structure. Each satoshi is a quantum of committed energy. Every transaction/Block mined in Bitcoin is a resolved, thermodynamic measurement.

Bitcoin turns entropy into structure. Satoshi defined the entropy per unit quantum when he mined the genesis block. No other system, centralized quantum lab or theory can show or prove this. They simulate collapse. Bitcoin performs it, irreversibly, for all to verify with precise accounting. Bitcoin does not need to prove itself, it exists bounded by absolute scarcity. The burden of proof is the other way my friend.

Centralized quantum computing assumes:

- Infinite state spaces.

- Reversible computation.

- That collapse can be simulated without cost.

But Bitcoin proves that measurement has a cost. Structure requires a minimum quantum of commitment and energy to resolve and register. That truth (measurement) requires energy. That scarcity is the precondition of information, value and meaning.

To fork Bitcoin for a speculative quantum threat is to betray its foundations. It replaces proof with fear. And the supposed “solution” becomes the real attack. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Bitcoin doesn’t need to be protected from quantum computing. It already defines it thermodynamically, irreversibly, and publicly. Please tell me what it means to compute a quantum.

Bitcoin is provable physics, not this nonsense spewed by the sunken cost fallacy of centralized “quantum” system. Bitcoin is open, variable and decentralized bounded to entropy resolution.

The only practical solution is to actually understand the physical process of Bitcoin; not fork it because we refuse to understand.

If you want to talk physics, let’s go.

Vlad, Bitcoin Takeover Podcast 5mo ago 💬 1

Sounds like Japan in 1945, claiming that atomic bombs defy the laws of physics 😂

Jack K 5mo ago 💬 1

No, I’m literally saying Bitcoin defines the laws of quantum physics, and nobody is ready for that truth.

Vlad, Bitcoin Takeover Podcast 5mo ago 💬 1

“Japan defines the laws of physics, getting nuked is impossible and nobody is ready for that truth”

Jack K 5mo ago 💬 1

Just speaking the language you understand, if you truly believe the quantum computer will be built in a centralized lab, closed-source, unverifiable, hidden behind black-box “error correction” schemes, and impervious to outside audit over the only open, decentralized, thermodynamic system that actually resolves entropy into immutable information, then believe what you wish.

But don’t pretend that’s science. Don’t pretend that’s sovereign computing.

Bitcoin is the only system where energy is committed, truth is mathematically measured, and memory is conserved through a scarce, well-defined, and bounded quantum; globally, publicly, and verifiably. That is the standard. If your claim cannot meet it, it’s not a threat. It’s just a story. Only fear imposed BIPs could stop Bitcoin.

Vlad, Bitcoin Takeover Podcast 5mo ago 💬 1

Dude someone puts a gun to your head and you pretend it’s non-lethal because you can’t verify the authenticity of it?

It’s really stupid. Closed source software you cannot verify in any way can already steal your bitcoin today. What are we even talking about?

Jack K 5mo ago

Clearly you don’t understand the observer problem in physics and can’t see how centralization is one of the many inherent flaws of quantum computing and theory. We’ll just leave it here.

kyle-moore 5mo ago 💬 1

I'd agree but we should have a plan in case

Jack K 5mo ago 💬 1

A “plan” without a verified threat is how fear replaces proof. Bitcoin’s entire ethos is built on the inverse; proof-of-work, not “planning for maybe”. Introducing BIPs before verifying the threat is how consensus fractures. The attacker doesn’t need to be real, only believed.

kyle-moore 5mo ago 💬 1

"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.

Jack K 5mo ago 💬 1

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.

kyle-moore 5mo ago 💬 1

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.

Jack K 5mo ago 💬 1

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.

kyle-moore 5mo ago

yeah you're right, there is a difference. good points