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.
Discussion
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