AIs have gotten noticeably less useful in the short time they've been here.

gold and silver priced in bitcoin

last five years

Stock2FOMO formula explained:

y(x) = y_i (2x_i/x - 1)^a

Time is anchored to Oct 4, 2009, where x = 0 and y = 0

With a < 0, the curve goes to infinity as x → 2x_i

x_i anchors the curve where y = y_i

y_i sets the scale

a controls the steepness

The longer I’ve been in Bitcoin, the more the Stock-to-FOMO model feels like the right mental framework.

We’re in the middle, the most boring stage of Bitcoin price action. I keep thinking we’re close to the other side, but the middle might be longer than we expect.

Those who say Bitcoin price action will never look like the early days forget what their denominator is. Fiat only goes towards zero.

Until then, Bitcoiners who missed the early rise are left to patiently stack sats, slowly losing our minds on our way to Suddenly.

Thanks nostr:nprofile1qqs27tmg9agj3xv993n9flcxt2jqtfqazh3trjmvj9e3yds9w38sdespzemhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skcqg4waehxw309ajkgetw9ehx7um5wghxcctwvshusv9d for the chart

I don't think this is a bear market.

Just depends, QuEra/Harvard ran fault tolerant algos on 96 logical qubits a couple weeks ago, error rate going down with scale, that was a shocker. Round two from that team early 2026 (trying to scale gates) could be a good indication.

It's kinda funny, so many bitcoiners super bullish on emerging tech, gene editing, AI, nuclear fusion .. except when it comes to quantum then suddenly everyone turns Amish.

Not sure why the network would be busy when the only dangerous move would be sending a tx, particularly during a time with a full mempool.

Meanwhile, this would be a very dedicated attack, and it'd be odd given how much more valuable so many other things are. Even at $1M bitcoin becomes a $20T asset. Global banking systems, nuclear launch codes, or heck, trusted trade secrets all become much more juicy targets, especially given that Bitcoin loses value dramatically in this scenario.

Given that nation states need Bitcoin more than most plebs even do (whether they realize it yet or not -- to defease their debt) this nightmare situation just doesn't seem to reflect anyone's actual incentives.

Game theory it out. As a pure thought experiment let’s say today there exits a military lab somewhere in Asia that just successfully tested a machine running 2.5k logical qubits (superconducting), 1 billion gates, whatever, key point it's enough to crack a key every hour or so, maybe 30 mins. And possible to make more.

Their goal, as part of a wider strategem, is to end Bitcoin, collapse it, cause as much panic in the west as possible.

What's their plan? How do the execute it? What happens when they do? What triggers what, and what cascades into what?

When you game theory it out you quickly realise it’s not a case of some 20 % of outstanding coins returning to the supply, we all have coffee, tomorrow is another day.

No no, it’s very bad.

Here are some things to consider

- They will have built up a supply of pre-cracked private keys to use all at once, for wallets with exposed pubkeys and the biggest balances

- For anyone with funds in a wallet that does not have an exposed pubkey, as soon as they hit 'send' the pubkey is visible to the lab.

- If the network is busy (which it certainly will be during a great panic) transactions can sit in the mempool for hours, even days.

- The lab will announce (true or not) that they can actually crack wallet keys in 10 minutes, and will pay anyone [insert low about] for their bitcoin now, or steal it on first attempt to move, your choice.

-And on and on. Add your own.

Users are terrified to move their money. If you leave it, it might be stolen later. If you move it, it is stolen now. Desperate users try to outbid the hackers by setting $5k USD transaction fees to get their funds in a pubkey hidden wallet. The lab, with its infinite stolen coin, simply sets their theft-fee even higher. The mempool fills with millions of transactions that will never clear. People break their transactions into small bits hoping some will get through. This just increases the congestion.

As the price collapses (which obviously it will) miners see the possibility they'll be hit with electricity bills they can't pay. The hash rate starts to drop off. With the hash rate in trouble the block time stretches even longer. This makes the sniper attack even more effective, as the lab has lots of time to crack a single key while a transaction sits in the frozen mempool.

By the end of the first week, the lab don't just have some coins. They have effectively destroyed the consensus reality of the asset, a knockout blow from which Bitcoin cannot recover.

This is of course a fantasy today. But it might not be a fantasy in 5 years, or 10 years. We are at 100 logical qubits, we need 2,000. That's not a huge jump. Gate numbers will move. Last month was a massive error-correction breakthrough over at Harvard. Other breakthroughs will happen. If at the time that this thought experiment vector actually exists and everything on the bitcoin side is just as it is today, well then, lights out.

Even if such quantum tech has only a 20% chance of existing in the next 10 years, why tempt fate but delaying the migration? It'll take years anyway, why not make it the #1 priority from today?

Game theory it out. As a pure thought experiment let’s say today there exits a military lab somewhere in Asia that just successfully tested a machine running 2.5k logical qubits (superconducting), 1 billion gates, whatever, key point it's enough to crack a key every hour or so, maybe 30 mins. And possible to make more.

Their goal, as part of a wider strategem, is to end Bitcoin, collapse it, cause as much panic in the west as possible.

What's their plan? How do the execute it? What happens when they do? What triggers what, and what cascades into what?

When you game theory it out you quickly realise it’s not a case of some 20 % of outstanding coins returning to the supply, we all have coffee, tomorrow is another day.

No no, it’s very bad.

Here are some things to consider

- They will have built up a supply of pre-cracked private keys to use all at once, for wallets with exposed pubkeys and the biggest balances

- For anyone with funds in a wallet that does not have an exposed pubkey, as soon as they hit 'send' the pubkey is visible to the lab.

- If the network is busy (which it certainly will be during a great panic) transactions can sit in the mempool for hours, even days.

- The lab will announce (true or not) that they can actually crack wallet keys in 10 minutes, and will pay anyone [insert low about] for their bitcoin now, or steal it on first attempt to move, your choice.

-And on and on. Add your own.

Users are terrified to move their money. If you leave it, it might be stolen later. If you move it, it is stolen now. Desperate users try to outbid the hackers by setting $5k USD transaction fees to get their funds in a pubkey hidden wallet. The lab, with its infinite stolen coin, simply sets their theft-fee even higher. The mempool fills with millions of transactions that will never clear. People break their transactions into small bits hoping some will get through. This just increases the congestion.

As the price collapses (which obviously it will) miners see the possibility they'll be hit with electricity bills they can't pay. The hash rate starts to drop off. With the hash rate in trouble the block time stretches even longer. This makes the sniper attack even more effective, as the lab has lots of time to crack a single key while a transaction sits in the frozen mempool.

By the end of the first week, the lab don't just have some coins. They have effectively destroyed the consensus reality of the asset, a knockout blow from which Bitcoin cannot recover.

This is of course a fantasy today. But it might not be a fantasy in 5 years, or 10 years. We are at 100 logical qubits, we need 2,000. That's not a huge jump. Gate numbers will move. Last month was a massive error-correction breakthrough over at Harvard. Other breakthroughs will happen. If at the time that this thought experiment vector actually exists and everything on the bitcoin side is just as it is today, well then, lights out.

Even if such quantum tech has only a 20% chance of existing in the next 10 years, why tempt fate but delaying the migration? It'll take years anyway, why not make it the #1 priority from today?

Neither. It is more likely the US govt will partner with Strategy as a new type of central bank. The appearance of distance between the govt and money is useful.

Trading is fine. You can exit anytime.

This is about the life-expectancy of the protocol itself.

>banks, stocks, personal data, etc would be vulnerable

Well no, because most banks are already well on the road to post-quantum. Most major browsers support hybrid PQC handshakes. Some larger banks have enabled this on their public-facing web servers. The backend cryptographic elements for most major banks are already PQC, and no major bank is going to non-PQC keys for any new internal project in 2026.

As for personal info, Signal has migrated already (they started some years ago, being smart). Google drive is already protected by hybrid PCQ and well on the way to full.

Just because the Bitcoin is by and large in denial, doesn't mean everyone else is.

>banks, stocks, personal data, etc would be vulnerable

Well no, because most banks are already well on the road to post-quantum. Most major browsers support hybrid PQC handshakes. Some larger banks have enabled this on their public-facing web servers. The backend cryptographic elements for most major banks are already PQC, and no major bank is going to non-PQC keys for any new internal project in 2026.

As for personal info, Signal has migrated already (they started some years ago, being smart). Google drive is already protected by hybrid PCQ and well on the way to full.

Just because the Bitcoin is by and large in denial, doesn't mean everyone else is.

whats more likely?

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

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

I agree with all of those things being problems, but I don't seem them as related to the debate of whether CO2 is a good or bad thing. They are a problem in their own right without needing attachment to any other narrative. It's simply unsustainable practices and agricultural centralization through a parasitic financing system.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your point.

i think you're misrepresenting things. as far as i understand the claim is not that co2 is bad. it is about the rapid change of co2 in the atmosphere

Fun, inconvenient observation: As CO2 increases, the stomata on plant leaves don’t need to open as much to intake CO2, which also means that the plant retains more H2O. More H2O retainment means that plants can survive in more arid environments. Which means that plants can encroach further into deserts. More CO2 = de-desertification. Very inconvenient for CO2 alarmists.

I share an office with some executives that are entirely focussed on "decarbonization".

That's their job. It is quintessentially fiat.

Imagine trying to have a conversation with these people.

I love hot humidity. The stickier the better. I inhale that soup like a fish, and love every bit of it.

Summer come baaaaaaaaack!!