We take the timechain to be self evident 🫡

Bitcoin Peer Review is coming.

you can respond to us here on nostr, no need to cast shadows from another platform. We clearly are just looking for a conversation that you have outright refused. We can have an open conversation right here on nostr rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks. You can’t just resort to “trust me bro”, prove your work in a conversation with us. You are a physicists, you should be able to answer our questions. If you actually listened to our talk, you would have heard us say that anyone reasoning about bitcoin through the lens of fiat is doing a disservice, yet you blatantly resorted to Bitcoin’s $1.6T fiat evaluation as justification for your cause. If you actually read our work you would have also seen that we provided the theoretical equations for calculating the energy of blocks in joules using thermodynamics/physics/entroy. We are arguing from the domain you claim to serve, physics, as to why Bitcoin is safe; yet you are using fiat as your first response justification to why we should not verify the physics. You haven’t disproven any of our equations and just refer to fiat. Is Bitcoin informational energy or not? Why is Bitcoin not physics? You don’t seem willing to even entertain the conversation, or allow it to exist. We are saying there is something here and we aught to verify. Prove us wrong. This is about extending knowledge of Bitcoin, it can’t be centralized around us. We are asking for help from the Bitcoin community, we are defending Bitcoin with logic. Surely you would be able to describe what a measurement is for all of us. Surely you would be able to empirically demonstrate quantum computation at the Planck scale of time with discrete superposition between the Planck blocks (ticks) of time. Surely you would be able to demonstrate the double slit experiment measured at the Planck scale of time to verify your wave is not actually a quantized block of time. Surely your models can describe the behavior and mechanics of Planck time. Surely you would be able to demonstrate to us that you can solve the double spend problem on Bitcoin without a quantized unit of time (block). Show us what measure is when time is continuous with Bitcoin. The question of measurement in physics is inherently a question about the double spend of energy with respect to a fundamental unit of time. You cannot logically believe that the double spend resolution is fundamental to upholding conservation of value within Bitcoin, and then reject the same principle when it comes to the conservation of energy (value) in physics. Demonstrate conservation in Bitcoin without the block. Explain how quantum superposed (contradictory) information collapses into a classical (binary) informational state with respect to a quantized casual boundary of local time, as a distributed network. Do you think P2P exchange of energy is fundamental to a coherent and conserved universe? Bitcoin is clearly computing the epistemic equivalent of the particle/field as the utxo/network through blocks of time. Our perspective is the opposite boundary of temporal “collapse”. Epistemology collapses into ontology. It’s the totality of measurement with respect to all 2.1 quadrillion bits of value (sats) from 0 (Genesis) to Present time. All states are preserved temporally (eternally) as blocks of time. This is the totality of an external measurement, measured in satoshsi. There is no second best. How many blocks does it take? If you would like to have the conversation to hash this out, we are ready to have it with you. We can hash this out over a call. Otherwise you are just noise if you are unwilling to falsify Bitcoin to defend your physics. The code is fine, it can only be falsified by ungrounded protocol changes. “I just heard about quantum and I’m here to fix Bitcoin”. Physics must respond to Bitcoin. Prove to the people on nostr that you actually understand what the double spend problem solved for.