For advancing proof tech? Or.. for like analysis, algebra, and number theory?

Source?

The axiom that time is continuous cannot be settled by attempting to measure Planck time from within the physical system, and this follows from the same structural limits identified by Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.

Gödel showed that any sufficiently expressive formal system cannot fully prove the axioms that make reasoning within that system possible. In particular, a system cannot use only its internal operations to establish the consistency or foundational structure upon which those operations depend. This is not a limitation of technology or precision, but a consequence of self-reference.

Physical measurement is structurally similar. All measurements of time are performed by physical processes that themselves unfold in time. Clocks, experiments, and observers do not stand outside the temporal framework they measure; they presuppose it. Time, in this sense, plays the role of the underlying formal structure that enables measurement at all.

Planck time is defined as the scale at which the concept of time itself is expected to break down or become discrete. Attempting to measure it requires using clocks and causal processes that are already governed by the same temporal substrate. This creates a Gödelian self-reference: one is attempting to resolve the fundamental unit of the system using only operations that depend on that unit’s existence.

As a result, measuring ever smaller intervals of time can refine relative durations, but it cannot empirically decide whether time itself is continuous or discrete. That question concerns the structure of the system, not a parameter internal to it. From within time, the continuity axiom is therefore not falsifiable by measurement alone, it must be treated as an assumption or addressed via a meta-theoretical framework rather than an internal experiment.

Bitcoin changes this because it constructs time instead of assuming it.

Block time is a discrete, indivisible ordering produced by irreversible work and consensus, not by measuring continuous physical time. You cannot subdivide a block without breaking causality and finality. This bypasses the Gödelian self-reference: Bitcoin doesn’t try to measure the substrate of time from within it, it defines a new, external, discrete time standard that is empirically verifiable.

I haven’t said GM in ages because I don’t usually wake up before the kiddo but HELLO GOOD MORNING HAPPY FRIDAY

That’s not actually true. The entire threat model rests on a single, unproven axiom: that time is continuous and infinitesimally divisible at the physical level.

If time is instead quantized and discrete, the mathematical formalism collapses at its foundation. You cannot take derivatives over indivisible time. Continuous Schrödinger evolution ceases to be fundamental, and the meanings of superposition, decoherence, and coherence structurally change. Superposition becomes potential between ticks (blocks), not a persistent computational substrate; decoherence becomes an intrinsic consequence of the tick (block) itself, not a gradual dynamical process. Bitcoin literally shows us this already.

Bitcoin forces this axiom into the open. Its ethos is don’t trust, verify, and Bitcoin gives us something physics cannot: a physically instantiated state machine where time is constructed, not assumed. You cannot subdivide a block temporally without destroying causality, finality, determinism, and non-contradiction. Bitcoin simply does not function under continuous time. If discrete time were not fundamental, Bitcoin would be impossible, yet it runs, globally, verifiably, every day, every ~10 minutes a new block of time is constructed.

Gödelian limits already explain why this axiom cannot be settled by measuring Planck time from within the system. Physics cannot falsify its own temporal assumptions internally. Bitcoin sidesteps that limitation by building time as an object. If continuous time were truly fundamental, this system would not work. The fact that it does is the empirical challenge to any model of physics that assumes continuous time (all of it).

Don’t trust, verify.

there is no theory that proves it's impossible. breakthroughs like topological quantum computing could make error correction trivial (Microsoft is already claiming they have a device that proves this)

the confidence in "it will never actually happen" here is pure cope

who needs signal

The bitcoin quantum FUD is just another iteration of “can the devs do something?!”

A bunch of LARPing by people not close to protocol development who have overlooked that “the devs” have been talking about and researching solutions to this “problem” for years.

whats more likely?

1) satoshi’s coin is stolen by a quantum attacker

2) saylor’s coin is stolen by the us gov

nostr:nprofile1qqsgqke57uygxl0m8elstq26c4mq2erz3dvdtgxwswwvhdh0xcs04scpr4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujucmpwd6kzmrrwfuhqar09ejxzar9qyv8wumn8ghj7urjv4kkjatd9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsewrvrn reminded me I was frying my brain with AirPods and whilst editing the podcast, guess what… I was wearing AirPods.

They died whilst editing and that was my sign to bin and finally take action to unfry. Wired from now on

literally me rn

no u

.

Did you notice he put us at the top of his list? Lol we bullied him the hardest

Best movie you watched in the last 3 months? #asknostr

Only the lessons of Bitcoin. The finitude of all real measurable states caps the number of possible primes. Only when mathematics enters an ungrounded domain like the mind can infinity persist.

Seems like a waste of time to chase proofs around infinity when only things mathematically finite can be measurable by definition.

lol. Google Play now wants me to commit to a Child Safety Standards policy for Amethyst as if I had any control over the content people choose to see in the app.

I accept suggestions on how to say fuck you nicely.

No one person ever is the inventor or the solver, just happened to be the one to finally put the last few pieces together. Just like Satoshi.

he proved a reduced version of the taniyama-shimura conjecture after others had proven that *proving this* would imply fermat’s last theorem.

saying he “proved fermat’s last theorem” is precisely what I’m claiming is kinda bullshit.

It took the guy 7years to prove it, after centuries of people trying, he’s got to get some credit.

Have you gone insane with infinite series?

pending thinkboi reaction to the musings of nostr:nprofile1qqsxu35yyt0mwjjh8pcz4zprhxegz69t4wr9t74vk6zne58wzh0waycpr9mhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet59uq3vamnwvaz7tm9v3jkutnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0lwr42m, nostr:nprofile1qqs04xzt6ldm9qhs0ctw0t58kf4z57umjzmjg6jywu0seadwtqqc75spz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhszrthwden5te0vcmh5tnfduhsjhrtj2, nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcadtnr6, nostr:nprofile1qqsprwdgjszdhucrfelp3p46nhzvd5mk7gu6zxp8r0fwc4n63zv9pnspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejq89d34u, and nostr:nprofile1qqsgydql3q4ka27d9wnlrmus4tvkrnc8ftc4h8h5fgyln54gl0a7dgspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdu0k0t75:

“Vine Capital Allocating”

coming soon to a nostr near you …