it’s a lot for me to perhaps eventually understand. thank you ✨ 🙏

really feeling what you said here: so “quantum” is largely a marketing label. one can guess that you must obviously know yourself that you are babbling (no grammar, being vague with saying “it” a lot) and have not at all added any clarity to it (the bitcoin lens framework). one of their main claims is that superposition is not possible, because of a certain type of quantum description of base layer physics…if at a quantum level of physics everything is discrete in nature, superposition is impossible and so too is the quantum computers that rely on quantum descriptions of particles. so lots of confusion happens when quantum computers are being rejected as unreal or unrealizable…but then still using quantum computing as an analogy to describe bitcoin.

yeah❣️ me too. it was so nice & fun chatting with you :) hope we get to meet again.

trying to understand your bitcoin lens: i think maybe anything (anything?) can be described in terms of physics. but quantum physics can possibly allow a description of _bitcoin_ as quantum computation…in an ideal sense of how things play out/manifest/are realized… if it’s (somewhat) accurate…i’ve been intrigued. also, though, i can think how everything depends on the language one uses to describe something. and so also, there’s the thought that if everything “is physics,” then so is bitcoin. /// then to calle’s quantum slop points… spoke w a physics professor last year who basically said (as said elsewhere too) that quantum computing has a materials problem. it’s an issue w the physical hardware that makes it (currently?) infeasible, like it’s a problem for room temperature superconductivity. #wishiknewmorephysics!

so v effing

theyrealizeditseasiertoreadinsmallcaps :)

₿❕