Topic: Schrödinger's Bitcoin Thought Experiment (Read 1109 times)

You have stated that the "the private key was lost forever due to the glitch".  Since this is an established fact according to your scenario, the bitcoin is dead and has been dead from the beginning.  Essentially, in "Schrödinger terms" you are suggesting that a dead cat be placed in the box, then waiting for the half-life of the killing trigger, and finally asking if the cat in the box is dead or not.  If the killing isn't triggered, it doesn't matter, because the cat was already dead when it was placed in the box. It doesn't come back to life.

To properly pose the question:

A long standing physical bitcoin mint with an impeccable track record has a glitch (unbeknownst to anyone) on their automated assembly line. The glitch results in one out of every trillion coins minted to be missing the private key inside.  The nature of the glitch is such that the private key is lost forever. The mint's coins circulate in the market, and everyone perceives that all the coins are worth a bitcoin. Before any particular coin is opened for the world to discover if the private key is corrupted, is the bitcoin dead, alive, or both at the same time?

In this case (until opened) every bitcoin issued by the mint is 0.0000000001% dead and 99.9999999999% alive.  Upon opening any coin and inspecting the private key, the wave function collapses and the coin becomes either 100% alive or 100% dead.

If the producer knows which coin contains no private key then the coin exists in a known state.  If no one knows which coin is missing the key then all coins exist in both states until the quantum probability wave collapses.  Though the above point about trusting the manufacturer and thus all coins existing in both states is really not wrong.



Depends - was the tix mutilated? 

Nifty thought experiment, but it has less to do with Schrödinger's theorem and more to do with the economics of counterfeit items.

When the private key was rendered effectively inaccessible, the bitcoin contained at that address was forever delegated to the land of the unspendable.  This attribute would mean it doesn't impart any extra value to the physical object it's attached to anymore.  Bitcoins are not just addresses, they're consensus verified of spendable units contained in the combination of public-private key pairs.  Without the private key, your bitcoins can't be moved and a physical coin that only says 1E3z61GvfZ48ePmKPSazQJZhTfTy78Feor on the exterior would become just as valuable as any other infinitely reproducible objects that could also have the same address printed on them.  

Physically imprinting an object with a private key doesn't even imply ownership in the bitcoin world. It's the knowledge of that private key that's valuable.  This is also why it's possible for people to imbue their private key into the form of memorized text and have a brainwallet.  (hopefully a good one).  Duplicating knowledge of the private key doesn't increase value either.

Taking the example of the "physical bitcoin" made with an invalid private key, it may still in fact be something that's treated with value in the real world (until at least, someone discovers its fake). If a large number of such objects were created, then there would be far more representative bitcoin in circulation and the price would decrease as a result due to lack of scarcity.  

It's a phenomenon that occurs with forged physical objects, and fractional reserve lending.  

Now, a more interesting thought experiment would be to send someone who owns bitcoin into Schrödinger's box, and then tell them to sign a transaction that will broadcast that bitcoin to somewhere else.  Before the box is opened, has the bitcoin changed owners?

dollars are not backed by any gold. 

Schrödinger's cat has nothing to do with those innovations, all these are just tools to massage our egos, no body understands how it works, we only know mathematics of it and that should be enough for advancement,  that said, such thought experiments are fun and lead us to new directions, I am no way diminishing the importance of it, but we should also be skeptics, always. Keep the duality in the mind!

I was more referencing the likelihood of similar skeptics in 1935.  And how if everyone had listened, we would have lost out on the last 75+ years of research into one of the foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

exactly, what we think doesn't change a thing

I feel like with enough effort I could find a newspaper giving this exact quote in 1935 over the original postulate.

You don't need such a elaborate experiment, what about the coin in a brain wallet, before wallet password is recalled, if you recall correctly it is there, else not, before that it is meaning less to ask.

In theory every physical Bitcoin that contains an obscured hidden private key could be considered to be in that uncertain state until the private key is confirmed. It is our implicit trust in the coin minter that they have attached the correct private key to a wallet that contains the face value in in BTC under the label that gives the coin it's physical value.

The same could be said of printed dollar bills that are backed by a gold reserve. It is our trust in the government that each printed note is backed by physical gold that gives it the same value.

lost

Not only is Bitcoin revolutionizing the financial industry, but Quantum Mechanics as well?! Nice.
 
Both states exist simultaneously until observed.  Unless your more of a Many-Worlds interpretation kind of person.
I'll have to reread Cosmic Banditos and get back to you..

A long standing physical bitcoin mint with an impeccable track record has a one in a trillion glitch (unbeknownst to anyone) on their automated assembly line. The bitcoin was allocated to the physical coin but the private key was lost forever due to the glitch. The coin circulates in the market, and everyone perceives it's worth a bitcoin. Before it is opened for the world to recognize the private key is corrupted, is the bitcoin dead, alive, or both at the same time?