Rad von Bitcoiner ⚡️

A quantum computer just "broke" Bitcoin. Except it didn't. Not even close. Google Quantum AI published a paper showing they've cut the theoretical ECDSA attack down to 1,200 logical qubits. They didn't publish the circuits. They didn't run the attack. They published a zero-knowledge proof that their math works, then cited national security. Here's where we actually are. Entangled logical qubits achieved so far: 96 Coherence time: 1-2 seconds Time the attack requires: days Physical qubits needed: 500,000 Largest quantum computer today: 1,200 noisy, non-error-corrected qubits That's a 100,000x coherence gap. It's not a software problem. It's a fundamental engineering problem that nobody has solved. But here's what most people miss. Bitcoin developers aren't waiting for a crisis. They're already shipping. SHRIMPS: post-quantum signatures 3x smaller than NIST standards, built for Bitcoin's block space constraints. BIP-360: a quantum-resistant output type already live on testnet, with BTQ Technologies running transactions through it. The full upgrade could take 7 years. That's why the work started now. The protocol will be ready before the computers are.

BREAKING: SQUARE TO AUTO-ENABLE BITCOIN PAYMENTS FOR MILLIONS OF SELLERS Square will auto-enable Bitcoin payments for all eligible sellers starting March 30, 2026, according to an updated Terms of Service notice sent to users. The change means millions of businesses using Square could soon begin accepting Bitcoin by default, rather than opting in manually. The rollout is part of Block’s broader push to integrate Bitcoin payments across its ecosystem, leveraging the Lightning Network for fast, low-cost transactions. Sellers will still have the option to disable the feature or automatically convert Bitcoin to USD at the point of sale. With Square powering millions of merchants globally, this marks a major step toward making Bitcoin a standard payment method in everyday commerce.

SAYLOR CENTRALIZING BITCOIN? NO, YOU'RE JUST STUPID: Satoshi Nakamoto sits on an estimated 1.096 million BTC - roughly 5.5% of the entire 21 million supply, all in one opaque, dormant entity with zero outbound movement since 2010. That's more than Strategy (MSTR) + every other corporate treasury combined. Forensic analysis has tagged these coins for over a decade. They're the single largest concentration Bitcoin will ever see. Yet the same crowd screeching about "centralization" stays radio silent. No manifestos. No outrage. No demands for redistribution. Fast-forward to 2026: Strategy holds exactly 738,731 BTC. Every single coin was bought on the open market, funded by issuing stock and preferred shares to willing participants. Not seized. Not printed. Not "annexed." Just voluntary exchange under the same rules available to every pleb, ETF, or whale. And who actually owns those 738k coins? Not Michael Saylor personally. They sit in the corporate treasury of a public company whose equity is sliced 335+ million ways: 1,351+ institutional holders (Vanguard, BlackRock, Capital International, Morgan Stanley, etc.) own 55–63% of the float. The remaining ~49% sits with public/retail investors - a broad base of Bitcoin-maximalist shareholders who bought in precisely because they wanted leveraged, liquid exposure without self-custody headaches. That's distributed economic ownership across institutions + hundreds of thousands of individual accounts (via brokers and funds). Saylor controls voting power through Class B shares, but the upside, downside, and risk are socialized across the shareholder registry. Contrast that with Satoshi's black-box cluster: One unidentified controller, zero transparency, zero fiduciary duty. The critics' "Saylor is annexing Bitcoin" line collapses under basic arithmetic and incentives. One entity (Satoshi) holds more in secret. A transparent public company holds less, but spreads the claim across thousands of owners who can sell shares tomorrow. Yet only the latter triggers pearl-clutching. Why? Because this was never about centralization metrics. It's selective outrage from people who missed the asymmetric upside and now want to rewrite the rules after the fact. Bitcoin's protocol is deliberately permissionless and apolitical. The market decides allocation. Large holders (early miners, corps, ETFs) are features of capital formation. Rockefeller didn't "annex" oil by outcompeting everyone; he scaled because he was better at it. Same dynamic here. The libertarian angle they pretend to own makes it even more incoherent. True property rights mean you can't use the state to cap how much Bitcoin a public company (or anyone) may accumulate via voluntary trades. That's not decentralization, that's central planning with extra steps and a side of envy. "We hate one-entity control… unless it's the creator, then it's fine. But if a company with millions of indirect owners does it, seize the assets!" That's not cypherpunk. That's the exact authoritarian instinct Bitcoin was invented to escape. So no, we're not "supposed to" nationalize corporate treasuries or pass "fair Bitcoin distribution" laws. The people pushing that aren't libertarians of any stripe, they're just communists who discovered crypto Twitter and thought "decentralization" meant "I get to decide everyone else's stack." The market already decided: capital is flowing to the hardest money on earth. Strategy is simply the most efficient vehicle for it right now. Cope, seethe, or buy shares. The coins aren't going anywhere else.

The Bitcoin quantum FUD is lazy and wrong. A quantum attacker needs your public key to even start. If you never reuse addresses, your public keys stay hidden, as secret as your private keys. Your Bitcoin at rest is safe. And the hardware needed to crack a Bitcoin key in a day? 13 million physical qubits. Best machines today have about 1,000. We're four orders of magnitude away from the threat these people are fear-mongering about. Basic address hygiene defeats the entire attack vector.