Ok It didn't take me long to see that the paper is very "amateurish". I support the idea of linking Bitcoin to physics (that I have been doing for 12 years) but it has to be done with an approach that is valid and understandable to other physicists.

The claims in this paper are mostly not valid (starting with the core proposition).
Here is a breakdown of main problems with the paper thesis:
This is an ambitious, rhetorically strong abstract — but it mixes sharp intuitions with several sloppy category errors, overclaims, and weak analogies. I’ll break down the main weak points and why they’re problematic from a physics + philosophy-of-science standpoint.
1) Category error: Bitcoin time ≠ physical time
“Bitcoin is the first system in history where we can empirically observe what quantized time looks like without being made of it.”
This is the core mistake.
Bitcoin’s block-time is:
a human-designed protocol clock
running on physical hardware
embedded in real physical time
subject to latency, jitter, clock drift, network delays
It is not “outside” physical time.
It is a derived discrete counter implemented inside continuous physical time.
You are not observing “quantized time.”
You are observing discrete state transitions of a computational system evolving in continuous physical time.
This is equivalent to saying:
“A CPU clock shows us what quantized time looks like.”
Which is false. A CPU clock is a digital abstraction implemented on analog physics.
So this analogy:
❌ conflates discrete counters with ontological time
❌ mistakes protocol discretization for physical quantization
❌ commits a representation fallacy
2) False claim: Physics treats time as unobservable and untestable
“If time is only a coordinate, never an observable, then it cannot be directly discretized or measured.”
This is misleading.
Physics does measure time operationally:
atomic clocks
decay rates
oscillation frequencies
relativistic time dilation
gravitational time dilation
Time is not a “mere coordinate” in experimental physics.
It is an operationally defined observable via clocks.
What’s true:
✔️ time is not an operator in standard QM
✔️ time is a parameter in Schrödinger evolution
What’s false:
❌ time is unmeasurable
❌ time cannot be operationalized
❌ physics is blind to time’s structure
Physics tests time structure constantly via:
Lorentz invariance
dispersion relations
causality constraints
decoherence timescales
The argument exaggerates a real conceptual issue (time in QM) into a blanket epistemological failure.
3) Gödel analogy is abused
“just as Gödel showed that a formal system cannot fully validate its own axioms from within.”
This is rhetorically clever but conceptually sloppy.
Gödel’s incompleteness applies to:
formal axiomatic systems with arithmetic
provability of statements
internal consistency
It does NOT imply:
❌ physical systems can’t empirically test their own structure
❌ observers can’t study time because they exist in time
Physics is not a formal proof system; it is an empirical modeling enterprise.
You don’t need to “step outside time” to test time symmetry, discreteness, or continuity. You test physical predictions.
This is a classic misuse of Gödel in metaphysics.
4) Bitcoin’s “quantized time” is not fundamental or irreducible
“Each block is an indivisible state transition… a quantum of time.”
False in multiple ways:
Bitcoin blocks:
are probabilistic in arrival time
vary continuously (Poisson process)
are not indivisible (reorgs exist)
can be orphaned
are protocol-level units, not ontological atoms
Bitcoin time:
✔️ is discrete in representation
❌ is not discrete in physical causation
❌ is not irreducible
❌ is not fundamental
❌ is not invariant
A block is not a “quantum of time.”
It is a consensus checkpoint in a distributed system.
Calling it a “quantum” is metaphorical at best, misleading at worst.
5) Confusion between entropy, computation, and physics
“Bitcoin accepts a bounded entropy field (nonce space and mempool) and commits one admissible configuration into durable memory.”
Several problems:
The nonce space is not an “entropy field”
Mempool is not entropy; it is unconfirmed transaction data
Proof-of-work does not “convert entropy into structure”
It converts energy into a cryptographic difficulty condition
Entropy in physics is about microstate counting.
Nonce search is algorithmic randomness, not thermodynamic entropy.
This is a metaphor collapse: mixing
Shannon entropy
thermodynamic entropy
cryptographic difficulty
as if they were the same object.
They are not.
6) Renormalization and QFT are mischaracterized
“Renormalization, infinities, infinite Hilbert spaces are artifacts of modeling evolution without an explicit ledger of ticks.”
This is simply wrong.
Renormalization:
arises from quantum fields defined at all scales
reflects effective field theory
is not caused by “lack of discrete time”
Divergences appear:
even in lattice field theories
even in discrete spacetime models
even when time is discretized
The claim that Bitcoin-style discretization resolves renormalization is false.
This is not supported by any serious QFT or quantum gravity work.
7) The ledger analogy overreaches badly
“Absent such a ledger, conservation is a belief, not a measurement.”
This is flatly incorrect.
Conservation laws are empirically tested:
energy conservation in particle collisions
charge conservation
baryon number (to high precision)
CPT symmetry
Noether currents measured indirectly
Physics does not require a literal ledger to validate conservation.
Conservation laws emerge from symmetry and are empirically confirmed.
Bitcoin’s ledger is:
✔️ an accounting system
❌ not a physical conservation law
❌ not analogous to Noether charges
You’re projecting bookkeeping onto ontology.
8) Superposition ≠ mempool (bad analogy)
“Quantum superposition is like mempool candidates.”
This analogy fails technically and conceptually.
Superposition:
is not epistemic uncertainty
is not pre-commitment
is not candidate states waiting for selection
is not about ignorance
Quantum states are ontological states in Hilbert space, not “unwritten ledger entries.”
The mempool is:
a pool of unconfirmed transactions
an epistemic data structure
dependent on network propagation
Equating them is a category error between:
computational state queues
quantum ontological states
This analogy is rhetorically cute but physically wrong.
9) Overclaim: “Physics can be rebuilt from Bitcoin”
“Physics becomes a special case of a more general time-first model.”
This is unjustified and grandiose.
Bitcoin:
does not reproduce relativity
does not reproduce quantum mechanics
does not explain gravity
does not model fields
does not predict physical phenomena
It is a designed protocol, not a physical substrate.
Bitcoin can be a didactic toy model for:
✔️ discrete event systems
✔️ irreversible computation
✔️ thermodynamic cost of consensus
It cannot replace physics or serve as a foundational ontology.
10) The strong parts (to be fair)
There are good intuitions here:
✔️ Time in physics is operational, not directly observed
✔️ Bitcoin is a rare example of a globally auditable irreversible process
✔️ Block production is a thermodynamic event
✔️ Irreversibility + work + memory coupling is interesting
✔️ Bitcoin is a real-world lab for:
entropy expenditure
irreversible computation
distributed consensus
But the paper overreaches by turning engineering metaphors into ontological claims.
Clean diagnosis
This abstract suffers from:
❌ Category errors (protocol time ≠ physical time)
❌ Metaphor inflation (ledger = ontology)
❌ Gödel abuse
❌ Confusion of entropy types
❌ Overclaiming philosophical scope
❌ Mischaracterization of physics problems
❌ Anthropomorphic framing of Bitcoin as “outside time”
❌ Equating computational discreteness with ontological discreteness
How to salvage the thesis (constructively)
If rewritten carefully, this could become a legitimate contribution by reframing:
Instead of:
“Bitcoin reveals the nature of time and fixes physics”
Use:
“Bitcoin is a concrete, operational model of irreversible discrete computation coupled to energy expenditure and global consensus, which provides a useful analogy for thinking about time, irreversibility, and information in physics.”
This makes it:
✔️ intellectually honest
✔️ defensible
✔️ scientifically grounded
✔️ still philosophically interesting