The post Beam-me-up money – Blockworks appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. This is a segment from The Breakdown newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe. “Money has been reduced to a simulacrum of its former self, a mere obligation by a counterparty to perform bookkeeping functions.”— Stefano Gogioso, A Quantum Moneyfesto In Star Trek, it took only seconds to travel from the Starship Enterprise down to a nearby planet. Crewmembers only had to step into the Transporter, which dematerialized them into a pattern of energy (accurate to the quantum level) and beamed them to a target location where the energy would be converted back into matter so the person could be reassembled. But is the person who beams back up the same that beamed down? The official, in-universe answer is that they’re one and the same. The consciousness of transported crewmembers remains continuous, they say, thanks to the perfection of the Transporter’s quantum-level scan and reconstruction.  As proof, they cite crewmembers claiming a memory of being in transit. But we’ve since learned how quantum-level transportation works, and that’s not it. In quantum teleportation, first discovered in 1993, the only thing being teleported is information. Teleporting, say, a qubit, requires that the original quantum state of that qubit be destroyed: By the laws of physics, collecting precise information on a quantum state collapses its superposition, thereby destroying it.  But the collected information can then be sent as classical data (ones and zeros) over a satellite or fiber optic cable and then, thanks to the physics-magic of entanglement, reassembled (from other particles) at its destination. So the unsettling truth is that the Transporter on the Starship Enterprise can only have worked by killing its passengers — the crewmember who beamed down is not the one who beamed back up. This has some sci-fi implications for the future of money. In banking, the way money… The post Beam-me-up money – Blockworks appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. This is a segment from The Breakdown newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe. “Money has been reduced to a simulacrum of its former self, a mere obligation by a counterparty to perform bookkeeping functions.”— Stefano Gogioso, A Quantum Moneyfesto In Star Trek, it took only seconds to travel from the Starship Enterprise down to a nearby planet. Crewmembers only had to step into the Transporter, which dematerialized them into a pattern of energy (accurate to the quantum level) and beamed them to a target location where the energy would be converted back into matter so the person could be reassembled. But is the person who beams back up the same that beamed down? The official, in-universe answer is that they’re one and the same. The consciousness of transported crewmembers remains continuous, they say, thanks to the perfection of the Transporter’s quantum-level scan and reconstruction.  As proof, they cite crewmembers claiming a memory of being in transit. But we’ve since learned how quantum-level transportation works, and that’s not it. In quantum teleportation, first discovered in 1993, the only thing being teleported is information. Teleporting, say, a qubit, requires that the original quantum state of that qubit be destroyed: By the laws of physics, collecting precise information on a quantum state collapses its superposition, thereby destroying it.  But the collected information can then be sent as classical data (ones and zeros) over a satellite or fiber optic cable and then, thanks to the physics-magic of entanglement, reassembled (from other particles) at its destination. So the unsettling truth is that the Transporter on the Starship Enterprise can only have worked by killing its passengers — the crewmember who beamed down is not the one who beamed back up. This has some sci-fi implications for the future of money. In banking, the way money…

Beam-me-up money – Blockworks

2025/12/11 00:24

This is a segment from The Breakdown newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe.


In Star Trek, it took only seconds to travel from the Starship Enterprise down to a nearby planet.

Crewmembers only had to step into the Transporter, which dematerialized them into a pattern of energy (accurate to the quantum level) and beamed them to a target location where the energy would be converted back into matter so the person could be reassembled.

But is the person who beams back up the same that beamed down?

The official, in-universe answer is that they’re one and the same. The consciousness of transported crewmembers remains continuous, they say, thanks to the perfection of the Transporter’s quantum-level scan and reconstruction. 

As proof, they cite crewmembers claiming a memory of being in transit.

But we’ve since learned how quantum-level transportation works, and that’s not it.

In quantum teleportation, first discovered in 1993, the only thing being teleported is information.

Teleporting, say, a qubit, requires that the original quantum state of that qubit be destroyed: By the laws of physics, collecting precise information on a quantum state collapses its superposition, thereby destroying it. 

But the collected information can then be sent as classical data (ones and zeros) over a satellite or fiber optic cable and then, thanks to the physics-magic of entanglement, reassembled (from other particles) at its destination.

So the unsettling truth is that the Transporter on the Starship Enterprise can only have worked by killing its passengers — the crewmember who beamed down is not the one who beamed back up.

This has some sci-fi implications for the future of money.

In banking, the way money is “sent” from Bank A to Bank B is that Bank A subtracts a number in its spreadsheet and sends a message to Bank B instructing it to add the same number to theirs.

Only the message is sent, not the money — which is why we need banks: to send each other messages about our money.

With quantum money, however, the money sends its own messages.

Quantum money is the idea that value could be represented by the quantum state of a particle and exchanged via quantum teleportation.

“The most important thing to understand here is that quantum [money] behaves like a resource, not like data,” Fabrizio Genovese explained in an email.  

Where a bank deposit is information about money and Bitcoin is a consensus record representing money, quantum money would be the money itself — an uncopyable atom, photon, or molecule that is money.

Not data about money but the physical resource of money.

This has utility because it would allow money to be secured and transported according to the unbreakable laws of superposition, entanglement and the no-cloning theorem. 

In other words, physics might someday do what databases and distributed ledgers do now, but without the database or distributed ledger.

Quantum money would therefore have the self-custodial properties of physical cash: You could keep qubits of money in a hardware device the same way you keep cash in your pocket.

That would make exchanging money perfectly permissionless (no intermediary required) and perfectly private (there’s no ledger of transactions).

But quantum money would also have the transportable properties of digital money: Destroying the money on your device creates the sendable information required to recreate it on another device, however far away.

(There is a moment when the quantum state, in transit as classical data, does not exist — which proves that the Star Trek Transporter really is a suicide machine.)

Sending quantum money will be like sending physical cash in the mail. But better, because it arrives instantly.

Sending money over great distances created the need for banks, but solving that problem introduced the intermediaries that now control nearly all of our money.

Bitcoin, of course, is a way of making peer-to-peer transactions possible over great distances. 

But quantum money would be the unstoppable way to do it.

“Blockchain transactions are not quite peer-to-peer,” Stefano Gogioso says, “because there’s always going to be part of the mechanism that can stop your transaction from going through. For economical, political, or technological reasons.”

Nothing will stop a quantum transaction, for any reason.

There is one limitation, however: Unlike Star Trek, where Captain Kirk could beam down to a newly discovered planet, quantum money can only be transported to a hardware device prepared to receive it.

That device does not yet exist, so quantum money is not yet feasible — we’re three or four years away from the earliest iteration, Gogioso estimates. 

When it arrives, though, it will be the safest conceivable way to send money.

Getting security from quantum states, Genovese says, is like getting energy from the Sun: “It’s what the universe gave us.”

As such, he expects all cybersecurity will eventually be done through quantum states — including money.

We’ll still have to give that money value, however, which might prove to be the hardest trick. 

Building a transporter to teleport qubits is one thing; getting others to accept them as payment is another.


Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:

Source: https://blockworks.co/news/beam-me-up-money

Market Opportunity
BEAM Logo
BEAM Price(BEAM)
$0,03226
$0,03226$0,03226
+1,70%
USD
BEAM (BEAM) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Son of filmmaker Rob Reiner charged with homicide for death of his parents

Son of filmmaker Rob Reiner charged with homicide for death of his parents

FILE PHOTO: Rob Reiner, director of "The Princess Bride," arrives for a special 25th anniversary viewing of the film during the New York Film Festival in New York
Share
Rappler2025/12/16 09:59
Addressing the sustainability question: The Web3 energy narrative

Addressing the sustainability question: The Web3 energy narrative

The post Addressing the sustainability question: The Web3 energy narrative appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. contributor Posted: September 22, 2025 The environmental impact of blockchain technology remains a significant public concern in September 2025. For Web3 to achieve widespread legitimacy, it must present a credible narrative and technological path towards sustainability. The models pioneered by Oraichain, Pinlink, and RSS3 showcase how decentralized networks can be designed for efficiency and can contribute to a more sustainable digital economy. Oraichain, as a sovereign Layer 1, is built on a Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) consensus mechanism. This is inherently more energy-efficient than the Proof-of-Work systems that drew early criticism. By design, its security model relies on economic staking rather than raw computational power, allowing the network to process complex AI computations with a minimal energy footprint compared to its predecessors, aligning its operations with a greener Web3. Pinlink’s DePIN model promotes a more efficient use of existing hardware resources. The relentless construction of massive, power-hungry data centers by tech giants is a major source of energy consumption. Pinlink’s approach is to unlock the value in dormant or underutilized GPUs already in circulation around the world. This “recycling” of computing capacity reduces the need for new hardware manufacturing and makes the overall digital infrastructure ecosystem more resource-efficient. RSS3 contributes to sustainability through its distributed and lightweight design. Unlike a centralized data indexer that requires massive, concentrated server farms, the RSS3 network is run by a global collection of independent nodes. These nodes can be operated on low-power, consumer-grade hardware, distributing the energy load and avoiding the inefficiencies of large-scale, centralized data centers. This architectural choice makes its information layer inherently more sustainable and resilient. Disclaimer: This is a paid post and should not be treated as news/advice. Next: As Bitcoin’s sell pressure grows, are investors seeking safety in altcoins? Source: https://ambcrypto.com/addressing-the-sustainability-question-the-web3-energy-narrative/
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/23 09:02
Alcohol Still Leads Restaurant Beverage Orders, According To Harris Poll

Alcohol Still Leads Restaurant Beverage Orders, According To Harris Poll

The post Alcohol Still Leads Restaurant Beverage Orders, According To Harris Poll appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A new Harris Poll reveals millennials and Gen X still drive alcohol sales in restaurants, while Gen Z mixes drinks, formats, and expectations. Alcohol may still be the default for many American diners, but the latest Harris Poll suggests drinking habits are shifting. While older generations continue to reach for beer, wine, and cocktails, Gen Z is redefining what it means to drink out, focusing more on flexibility, aesthetics, and mood than tradition. Millennials are still loyal alcohol buyers when dining out, but Gen Z’s beverage habits are harder to pin down, according to new Harris Poll data. getty What the new Harris Poll reveals about U.S. beverage behavior In a nationally representative survey conducted by Harris in partnership with eMarketer, 36 percent of Americans reported that alcohol is their preferred restaurant beverage, slightly ahead of soda at 29 percent and water at 21 percent. But in practice, the most commonly ordered items are still non-alcoholic: 89 percent said they ordered water in the past 30 days, and 78 percent ordered soda. Alcohol remains a strong presence, with 69 percent of diners saying they ordered at least one alcoholic drink recently. Cocktails topped the alcohol category, followed by beer, spirits, and wine. While the overall preference is clear, the details begin to diverge once you look at generational breakdowns. Millennials still drive alcohol sales, especially with repeat orders Millennials continue to be the most reliable customers for restaurants selling alcohol. Fifty percent say alcohol is their default drink when dining out, compared to just 25 percent of Gen Z. They also reported significantly more repeat orders over the past month—especially for beer, spirits, and wine. This makes millennials a priority for alcohol brands and on-premise sales strategies. Libby Rodney, the Chief Strategy Officer at The Harris Poll, explained it this…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/24 02:21