Bitcoin as the Architecture of Time w/ Jeff Booth, Jack Klucznik & Nicholas Marino | Bitcoin 2026

Okay, this is such a big topic that I want to start by setting the table of the topic. Um, one of the things one of the things that I love about Bitcoin is we get to see the entire because of the consensus mechanism and us seeing the choice for the first time in history. We don't see a little window of what experts tell us and make decisions on top of that. We see the entire all of the people trying to advance Bitcoin and all the people trying to tear it down and the fear and the hope and we see it all and then we get to each decide for ourselves what's right for us and and so I why that's important is we've always lived in this control system. We've always lived and and so what you saw in Bitcoin is first governments are going to stop it. Uh it's bad for the environment. It's it the free market there has to be inflation. You've seen over and over nonsense. So then you we have this quantum debate and the quantum debate lands into something that is scary for all of us because we aren't smart enough in quantum and we go back to the experts. What do they think? And so that would feel a really chaotic through through this ch this change that we're going through and we're a part of this consensus and our fear takes over and goes to somebody else that they they must be smarter, right? And so so Nick and Jack came to me with their different look of the this about a year and a half ago and they've been working working on working on this. But we're going to put this in a box and we're going to put the box is going to be this. What if there wasn't a quantum threat to Bitcoin? And and and you can determine what that box looks like instead of there is going to be a quantum threat and we have to upgrade the protocol. What if there wasn't? So with that, I'm going to open up and and and Jack, why don't you tell us a little bit about the paper that you uh that you created and what you what you think is happening? Yeah. So we started writing the paper basically because we think measuring Bitcoin and fiat is doing a disservice to Bitcoin. So we wanted to quantify the blocks in jewels and that forced us to deal with the architecture of time and understanding what time is because time is uh it's native to Bitcoin. you know, GI was the first person to talk about this and so we really wanted to build on that and come up with an answer and in doing so it led us to the quantum problem and we realized that we're actually looking at the same problem but from the opposite boundary of time. So I know that's a little bit abstract but we're talking about um you know the measurement of information and how information collapses into a singular chain and so that's what that was our basis. So we we just wanted to get rid of fiat in the conversation of Bitcoin. You know, we see Bitcoin as a physical process. Uh we claimed it as a thermological process. So heat and logic. So a thermological process that produces a chronological state. That's the objective reality beneath Bitcoin. You know, the thing that we all use, that's what's occurring in proof of work. So we wanted to ground our understanding in something objective so that we can tie our understanding of money to that. We wanted to define money not from fiat but from Bitcoin itself. And so we needed to ground Bitcoin in a a physics lens. And so this is just the first start of that. And we're just hoping to bring the conversation forward and and you know get the industry away from fiat. I mean I think that's um one of the biggest things we're all mentally dealing with which is we've always lived within a fiat system. All of our knowledge is based within this system and so all of our interpretations have some connection to this way of thinking and I think we're just trying to pull back these questions to when we say you know thinking first principles are we actually doing that if it's constrained by certain assumptions that we've made and deferred to who we currently see as experts in the space what makes them an expert currently when our physics breaks down at this uh boundary that we're trying to elucidate and um what uh Jack just currently was uh speaking to with what we've written about uh in this initial paper. Um I mean >> yeah it's just who who are we trusting? We need to verify our physics because ultimately that's what the quantum threat comes down to. Who are the industry leaders telling us that quantum is a problem? Uh you know who are the people in Bitcoin that are that are uh telling us that quantum is a problem? Who are they trusting? what are their incentives? So, it's we just want to get an understanding of that and and really uh use that as a basis of we need to verify our physics. So, so walk through why you believe that time is is discreet instead of linear and what is what do you think Bitcoin is is showing us there by by having a system that's architected without observers in the system and what what's happening there? Well, I just I just want to lay out something which is that all of our current modern physics that we use institutionally that's generally spoken about and agreed upon is based on a continuous time assumption. So discrete time has never had really an anchor point of uh discussion because there's never been empirical evidence for the idea of discrete time. Um, but continuous time, we use it because it makes all of our equations that are so predictively powerful work. But that doesn't necessarily mean that's what's going on at the basis of reality and causal order. And so we look at Bitcoin is when you look at its structure, how it produces blocks, all of the mechanics of it have a discrete nature. And so we've just been pulling the the layers back to see it and define it for what it is. And so it's reordering our our sense and understanding of is the nature of time something more than the assumption that we initially started with. Yeah. So the physics under the for quantum continuous time is the assumption here. And we're saying that everyone talks about the double slit experiment as like the justification for the quantum threat. And we're saying Bitcoin is the double spend experiment because it's it's operating at the fundamental basis of energy, logic, and time. And so it's computing blocks of time. That's what's actually being computed here. And when you really strip back the logic here, we're saying without the block of time, you don't have a solve a double spend pro. You can't solve the double spend problem. And what we realize is that the double spend problem is the exact same problem of the double sled experiment but from the opposite boundary of time. And what what do I really mean by that is is you can't we're talking about how information collapses into a singular uh you know a singular binary state. So the measurement problem in physics is is the ultimate problem that nobody can solve. And it's because they're trying to understand how quantum or contradictory superimposed information collapses into classical binary information. And when you look at Bitcoin, you see a superposed state in the memp pool and then you have a measurement process of proof of work and then it collapses into a singular binary chain. And know and so without the block of time, you have no solution. So basically that is a falsification of the axiom of continuous time. It's demonstrated right in front of us. And without the block, you do not have a solution to the problem. And continuous time never provides the boundary at which measurement could ever occur. And so this is an assumption that has been carried through physics. And Bitcoin is saying, "No, this actually has to be answered for whether the the physicists know this or not or the, you know, team quantum, the people who are saying there's a threat, this actually has to be answered for because basically to uphold both quantum, you can't you can't believe in both quantum and Bitcoin anymore because of the double spend problem. Either you have to show how Bitcoin will solve the double spend problem without blocks of time aka continuous time or you have to concede that that is the wrong assumption of time. I mean if we can maybe paint a picture in our minds um because it all gets really abstract really quick. I mean we're trying to basically say if you could step outside of time what would it look like? And so since we can't physically do that, we can look at okay computer systems is there any model that a computational system could basically be structured uh through and say does this give us a different picture of what is logically possible? Is there something that could exist as a computational system that could give you a symmetry of causal order that we kind of reference in physics? Could we step outside and look at time through this lens of could a physically bounded system that we observe as witnessing Bitcoin is a physically bounded system. We have this metaphor uh time is money. If we think about that a little bit deeper and reflect on it and just don't walk by it. We we should recognize as a civilization, we are an extension of physics. We are an extension of the laws of thermodynamics. Money is an extension of us. I think it's time to take money into the physics domain and not treat it as separate knowledge bases. I think if we truly want to go deeper with our physics, we need to reassess what money is and what a precise form of it looks like. Because money is not separate from our physics. It extends from thermodynamics. We can't escape this. >> Yeah. Just to add a little bit to that, uh, Nick, you know, all of our lives, we all perceive the internal experience. And so, we see the onlogical experience of reality. And Bitcoin is giving us the external experience. So, the epistem epistemological experience. And so, what we're what we're seeing is in Bitcoin, we're actually looking at the process at which epistemology becomes ontology relative to the ledger itself. And so, what does that really mean? We're just we're simply seeing that Bitcoin is a bounded totality. We can see the entire 21 million or the 2.1 quadrillion bits of value or Satoshi's. So we can see that whole system. We can see every single state of information from genesis to present. We have an external view of totality. And so we are standing outside of that process of time. And so we actually have a a an architecture that we can follow to understand our own ontology. We're we're saying it's the same thing. There's just a boundary here. And that's what physics is neglecting to uh to look at is that there there must be a boundary. The there is no solution to the double spend problem. There is no solution to the measurement problem without admitting there must be a quantized boundary. And so what is Bitcoin? It is in our opinion the proper interpretation of what a quantum computer is. And it's computing blocks of time. And that is the quantum the quantum of causal change. There is no smaller unit of change than a block of time. And so when we begin when we map that onto our understanding of physics, especially at the plank scale, it begins to give us meaning at what all these mathematical boundaries are. >> So okay, we're there. Let's let's attack this from a different portion. Now you're on the other side of the uh this and you're you're you're you're a quantum researcher and you're trying to drive quantum and you believe that that the states can coexist at the same time right from linear time. What would you expect? So these subatomic states that coexist, like you said, the memp pool, there's a whole bunch of things that probabilities that could exist that then get collapsed by energy to one state that does exist and you can't unwind that, right? So now what would it look like from from your view in in quantum, right? What would that experiment look like for people measuring from linear time? And what would they what would that you what would you expect to see there? >> Um I mean we're seeing air in and air out and so because there's physics doesn't understand what measurement is. They don't actually understand uh the ontology of superp position itself. And so they don't understand that this is a pre-measured state. And well, they do understand it, but they don't understand its ontology. And so, you're looking at something akin to uh the the memp pool. And so, they're attempting to manipulate the mempool like like creating error and adding manipulation before the measurement occurs. And then you're getting exponential error on the other side of that. And that's because they don't understand the causal order of of measurement itself. And so, you're getting exponential errors. But then you're also being asked, trust us. We can't verify any of these things ourselves. We just have to simply trust that these outputs are true. And when you look into all the, you know, the quantum information uh you know regarding Bitcoin, they're pre-solving the answer and then putting it into the machine >> and and pre-solving in classical computers. >> Yeah. Pre presolving it in classical and giving it the specific output. And we're just saying this is all nonsense. It it just doesn't make any logical sense because they can't answer for what the boundary of time is. They don't have an architecture. And we're trying to we're trying to keep it at least constructive and saying Bitcoin is the answer. Like Bitcoin is is physics. Like everyone is looking for a theory of everything. Bitcoin isn't a theory. Bitcoin is a theory that is instantiated with energy such that it proves itself every 10 minutes. And when you really pick at the problems of of what's going on, you can't ever solve the problem of truth without it being a temporal process. We don't know if Bitcoin will ever contradict itself or double spend until the next block is mined. And only when that block is mined do we know no contradictions. So this is a temporal process that we have to understand as to how classical or binary information emerges as a process. I think as a wider audience since we really don't have a lot of time to go like in depth um I think with what he's saying that we've come to the conclusion that Bitcoin is our best reference point for understanding these types of questions and uh creating a new logical framework to think through and from uh but Bitcoin doesn't actually matter if it doesn't solve the double spend problem and so I think that narratives have evolved over time and more people are coming in and it's the idea of perfect money, but perfect money can't exist if the double spend problem isn't actually solved. And so I think it's it's important for us to think through what is the double spend problem because that's really what the white paper that launched all of this uh starts from and what it's actually solving for. We don't see it as purely a computer science problem. We think the nature of it is that the double spend problem is a concept that exists across all domains at all resolutions of scale. So we see the double spend problem as a physics problem and it should be contended with that way. But if it's only thought of in one dimension, it's only related to computers. Physicists are never going to pick it up and explore what is the double spend problem. So I think we want to be constructive in presenting that it's worth it to explore the double spend problem as a physics-based problem. >> So how sure are you each of you each of you? So the again will lots of people will trust the experts move to fear not do do work. You're coming across as new experts in a in something that you're saying you shouldn't be scared of this at all. So, how sure are you? >> As long as there's never a double spend in Bitcoin, 100%. >> As long as there's never a double spend, I'm completely confident. Gain confidence every single day that what we're talking about will make sense. >> Um, where can people find you in our last 10 seconds? >> Bitcoin Lens.net. Don't trust us. Verify yourself. Come help us, please. >> Thanks very much. >> Thank you. Every year, this community comes together to celebrate, to debate, to build what comes next. And every year, the stage gets bigger. Sound money, center stage. So, where do you go to celebrate the next chapter in Bitcoin history? You come home. Nashville, July 2027.