Replies (79)
Just buy more of his paper bitcoin. 🧻
I wonder if Satoshi is still alive, what he thinks of all this tomfoolery. 🚬🥃
That's the Core position, Loops bip has overwhelming support and dissent is banned or shadow edited
I don’t hate Saylor’s take here: give people a year or two to move their coins into quantum-safe wallets (which everyone who still has access to their keys will do…unless they are retarded).
If coins aren’t moved, it’s most likely because the owner is either dead or has already lost their keys (meaning those coins wouldn’t be movable anyway). Freezing them just ensures they can’t be stolen, which seems reasonable to me.
Silver lining is that we’d finally get a clearer picture of how many coins are truly lost. And the asset becomes even more scarce.
> unless they are retarded
all proposed quantum resistant signature schemes have tradeoffs, mainly they are much less efficient and have untested security guarantees
That’s valid, I didn’t know that
(Disclaimer: I am also retarded)
Looks like another core vs plebs fight brewing.
they have untested security guarantees at the moment.
I think we will see post quantum security in the future … my concern is more about the freezing part
Even if you give ample time for owners to move corn?
yea so we roll out a new signature scheme that is opt in, tested in the wild over time, and no coin is frozen
i support that
Am I an employee of Strategy now, or Bitcoin, Inc, or what? When can I expect a paycheck
@npub15dql...lm5m? The reason employees upgrade when they're told to is because they're on the payroll.
And then basically if you don’t opt in then you risk getting your corn stolen?
This still allows for coins from lost wallets and dead people to be stolen. We are cool with this?
Show me the encryption Saylor...
Look I’m not gonna complain about an opportunity to buy a massive dip, I’m just thinking this one out!
we roll out a quantum resistant signature scheme that is opt in, tested in the wild over time, and no coin is frozen
So you are ok when some startup steals 1M BTC from Satoshi?
> This still allows for coins from lost wallets and dead people to be stolen. We are cool with this?
yes, the alternative is to effectively preemptively steal their bitcoin which is strictly worse
should we burn saylors coin because the us gov might steal it?
> should we burn saylors coin because the us gov might steal it?
Fuck that’s a good point. I would argue that it’s different because Saylor is alive/hasn’t lost his keys, so this doesn’t seem like apples to apples to me but your point is taken- if we start freezing coins….where does it end?
saylor never had his keys … maybe a coinbase password
I also kind of hate that if a ton of corn was dumped on the market, this would allow the BlackRocks of the world to scoop up a much larger percentage of the network
You don’t think Saylor could transfer his coins to another custodian? I say high probability he has his keys Holmes
Have fun re-encrypting your bitcoins!
idk and idc
I don't think if you said to him "Hey, we can create new quantum resistant address types on the existing chain through a soft fork" he would be opposed to that. I think he would prefer that.
But I believe his point still stands, everyone would have to move their coins to the new addresses. The old addresses would be drained. I don't think it is possible to just upgrade without moving your coins to a different address, either on the same chain or a different one.
Am I wrong here?
I wish you were that concerned with the CSAM upgrade that was shipped by a handful of guys two months ago, despite the enormous opposition of the broad community. Unfortunately, as it is always with you OG influensooors, it’s only the obvious attacks that needs to be addressed, not the sneaky and smart ones. 😩
How is it stealing? More like finding lost treasure.
Core exists at this point only to turn Bitcoin into a Politburo that can be captured by the Courtier
There's zero excuse for there to still be a "default" repo in Bitcoin that undiscerning people turn to on account of its legacy
The only Pro-Bitcoiner move the Core repo can make is to archive itself and force the uninitiated to actively choose a distribution #ArchiveCore
we roll out a new signature scheme that is opt in, tested in the wild over time, and no coin is frozen
i support that
that is not what saylor is advocating
That’s some Craig wright shit
we roll out a quantum resistant signature scheme that is opt in, tested in the wild over time, and no coin is frozen
I guess I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. And it could be he is not up to speed. Maybe you will get a chance to interview him again and can press him on it. ;-)
What's the best quantum safe approach to Proof of Reserves? Trying to integrate PoR into our corporate treasury
I didn’t know Michael Saylor codes.
Worse than that, look at that interior design. 🤮
“should we burn saylors coin because the us gov might steal it? “
Would be quite funny…
Crazy how he speaks on it like it’s already decided. Burn your own coins Mike! Leave everyone else’s alone.
lol rug pull Uncle Sam, that would be hilarious
Leo Wandersleb
View quoted note →
Imagine a future where lost, vulnerable coins are a $50T honeypot. Is that the prize we want to offer for the first Quantum Computer out of our collective pockets?
Bitcoiners shouldn't be the ones sponsoring the quantum frenzy.
We aren't freezing funds to "save" them like we would for Saylor vs. The State. We are freezing them because lost coins must remain lost. Loss is deflationary - quantum "mining" lost coins is inflationary.
With years of notice, the deal is simple: Move your coins to quantum-safe addresses, or thank you for your donation to the deflationary supply.
View quoted note →
why cant you just hard fork with new quantum resistant signature scheme for everyone, no migration necessary, and not freeze any coin?
Creating debt to buy Bitcoin is also not very "proof of work". He has been doing that from the beginning.
I agree 100%. As long as the reference client is being actively developed it's an attack vector. The last few months proved this beyond all doubt.
Thinking about this some more.
Matt, let's assume your proposed solution gets implemented, and new quantum resistant addresses are created through a soft fork. It's tested in the wild over time and no coins are frozen.
It's voluntary. Some people move, some don't, and some coins are dead and can't move.
Then quantum hits.
Someone with a quantum computer start grabbing all the remaining coins, including Satoshi's. They then move those coins over to the quantum resistant addresses.
Is that the best option? Giving the quantum guys all that corn? Plus it could be a government.
I don't have an answer to this question, but having some sort of cutoff date before quantum hits doesn't seem completely crazy given the alternative. I will admit however that coming to consensus on a cutoff date would seem nearly impossible.
I read the bip360 proposal website. they are suggesting to eventually penalize wallets that are quantum vulnerable by limiting how many spends from these wallets can be in a block. this would prevent satoshi's coins from flooding the market too quickly if he is indeed dead and cannot migrate them himself, and it would be an alternative to outright confiscation
I don't like confiscation either
you should really read the bip360 proposal website
I generally like Saylor, but I get real uneasy when he takes philosophical positions I don’t agree with, especially because so many people seem to follow his lead without a second thought.
Even scrolling through the comments, there are a few too many who don’t appear to have fully thought through the implications of freezing coins.
Fear is a powerful drug.
Exactly, it's like recovering treasure from a sunken ship.
if bitcoin is stolen then so be it
the alternative is to preemptively steal people’s bitcoin which is strictly worse
should we burn saylors coin because the us gov might steal it?
How do you unlock them? How could they "upgrade" if something took away their ability to sign transactions? That hardly seems better than just losing them and having them put back onto the market.
Freezing is stealing. Getting them via quantum is more like finding buried treasure (and also only hypotheticaly possible).
He's not advocating for anything he got presented a scenario and he presented a maybe solution. Nowhere here He advocated for upgrade for code change for anything.
And I hate sailor I think he's the government, but in this video he's not advocating for no upgrade bro.
So we all have to take a haircut to do the moral thing.
That is always fun ;-)
Lot of people pissed about Saylor. At the end of the day he is acting in self interest.
How many of you, have built multi-million dollar companies over a long time horizon?
There are a few too many people earlier this year that didn't think through the implications of storing up to 100kb of data in Bitcoin blocks
That makes a change from his previous position of ossification.
Let’s face it. If quantum proofing is going to work, then addresses that don’t move are going to be vulnerable. If you give everybody 2 years to move coins to quantum proof addresses, and some don’t move, you have to figure those people lost their keys, are dead, or not interested. Either way those coins are gone for them forever. Lock them so they can’t be stolen.
What's the mining council? 😂
"calling it as soft fork seems disengenuous"
You can do better than this
"Hard fork" and "soft fork" are well-defined technical terms. Either can cause a chain split
This was explained thousands of times to the RDTS/Knotsi crowd in recent months, on Twitter and in their Telegram group chat. But they were told by Liar
@Luke Dashjr that "hard" and "soft" mean "split" and "no split"
If you want to talk about controversy, and consensus, and chain splits, please do
Saylor is state captured and will say and do anything he have to be allowed to stay in business. Already back in 2020 he started to plant the seed that bitcoin is not money. He and Strategy is not alligned with decentralised freedom money, and never was.
I am confused with the problem. Satoshi advocated for changing the encryption should the need arise. Satoshi advocated for pruning nodes in the white paper. Satoshi advocated for self sovereignty by having every holder (and probably miner) be a node. You will have to be alive to be a node. If an upgrade burns a dead man's coins it is not confiscation. If they are alive, but fall asleep at the wheel then they deserve to be locked out. What am I missing?
I was on board with what he said as well and thought what you thought too. I don't think he's advocating for something bad, but rather "well... move it or it'll get stolen by someone" , and like myself and many others that what people are thinking should happen, however, what Odell said (the potential solution of changing the signature scheme), if possible (and i hope there are educational material about this so you, others, myself, and Saylor get educated on, then obviously people would do that), then most people who were thinking that we should move coins would obviously just think that we should just change the signature scheme.
Right now, I'd imagine, most people think we have to move coins otherwise it'll be stolen when the quantum stuff happens, but if there are people start educating others about the alternative solution of changing the signature scheme and it being actually a viable option, then most would advocate for that solution instead. All that's missing is people informing/educating others about it and how it works, and at that point myself and others and most likely Saylor as well would advocate for this other solution instead.
I bet they are at the Jacob Rothschild's mansion! Lol
View quoted note →Solo por la acumulación de riqueza indecente de esa familia millones de seres humanos viven en la miseria 🤮
1- it needs to be a softfork
2- No freezing the of the coins
That's what I would advocate. If the coins get stolen, they get stolen. We can't risk freezing funds that are not lost
Fuk saylor and his digital capital, fiat bullshit. We're not here to coexist we're taking their whole system out
You're the liar. I said nothing of the sort. And no, softforks _don't_ cause chain splits.
this time though, we're proposing a fork that makes those who don't update and those who do update *disagree on the chain state*
this was carefully avoided previously.
this time it would be intentional and cause a split.
not clear what Luke's point is 🤔
Yes, it's a technical distinction, not an ethical one.
Dathon Ohm's soft fork will, if they are crazy enough to activate, cause a chain split
The only way they can avoid a split is if they get more than 50% of hashrate
But - in my opinion - they won't get 51% of hashrate and therefore we'll have a textbook example of a chain split caused by a softfork. It will be a good opportunity for you to learn how bitcoin works
There is no debate on this, and therefore I will not waste time with you on this thread again. This is Nostr, not X or Telegram, and I expect higher standards
You are a disgrace, lying to the plebs like this
I didn't say anything about being for or against freezing coins
Contention around this broader quantum topic may cause chain splits, depending on various factors.
Contentious forks, hard or soft, can cause chain splits depending on the distribution of hash rate and other factors
@𝕾𝖊𝖗 𝕾𝖑𝖊𝖊𝖕𝖞, A soft fork with minority hashrate will chain split
I'll be precise:
Let's imagine 40% activate
@Dathon Ohm's soft fork in 2026. The remaining 60% just keep doing nothing, i.e. they keep running their existing Core and Knots nodes, like Core 0.21 or Core 30 or Knots 29. Let's call the 60% the "Taproot" hashrate
Also, observe that many current blocks are incompatible with the RDTS rules, for example having OP_RETURNs greater than 83 bytes
The 60% running taproot will get a block roughly every 17 minutes, while the RDTS will find a block roughly every 25 minutes
The first hour or so could be interesting, and maybe Taproot miners will find a couple of blocks that satisfy the RDTS rules. But that won't last long, the Taproot chain will soon include blocks that are rejected by the RDTS hashrate
The chain will split, where the majority hash rate will ignore the RDTS chain because it doesn't have enough Proof of Work, and the RDTS will ignore the Taproot chain because it has RDTS-incompatible blocks
So basically,
@Luke Dashjr was wrong at least three times in this one paragraph X post:
https://xcancel.com/LukeDashjr/status/1983145119176945910
Social contract? I never signed it
Soft fork is soft fork. The fact that you have some emotion associated with it doesn't change that.
Elliptic curve (EC) cryptography isn't as simple as RSA (large-prime based, signing and encrypting uses the same algorithm). The "signing" and "encrypting" algorithms are different in ECC, so to say "quantum will break Bitcoin's encryption" isn't exactly accurate, because Bitcoin only uses the signing-algorithm. Addspam Back is playing with words, the technical equivalent of correcting the conjugation of your verbs. He is saying the proper "concern" is when bitcoin's EC signing algorithm (ECDSA) is broken by quantum.
No, you're wrong. You're acting as if miners have a choice. They don't. They must make blocks that the network accepts, or they're not miners anymore. If they make invalid blocks, *they* are splitting the chain - not the softfork.
Furthermore, their invalid blocks don't constitute a real chain: every time the valid chain gets ahead, all the old nodes will drop the invalid blocks and those miners will start over, with huge losses. The only way they can avoid this, is with a counter-fork.
You're the one lying
About time Saylor shows bis real intension.
I think there basically be soft-fork with dual signature types the Quantum addresses and the regular addresses for a long time.
And slowly people will slowly give economic preference to the new Quantum addresses. And that's it. To the point that people on older addresses start losing economic opportunity.
Nobody is forced to do anything. There will be a new alternative/upgrade, people will choose it or not.
It's really not that of a big deal. And it'a all voluntaryist.
You don't need to lock them up, the market will do that economically and voluntarily.
