Haven’t listened yet, just shitposting. I don’t agree with the premise of this reply (CRQC not inevitable + disagree with the subjective judgment that some “pirate VC” getting the coins is net worse for bitcoin long run than a preemptive seizure) but you and I went back and forth on this a couple weeks ago so prob no need to re-litigate here. I look forward to listening to the full rip.

Notice how he uses “community” as a positive and “private” as a negative.

I would change the perspective completely. It's not about who will steal Satoshi's coins. It's about wether the bitcoin holders want to sponsor the race towards quantum computing or not. "Satoshi's coins" are either still owned by somebody or they are lost. Owned coins can prepare a migration - even without publicly revealing they prepared - and lost coins are never stolen.

I see several things wrong with this pov. First, stop assuming they're Satoshi's. We don't know that. Second, when/if they are spent, we won't know how the private key was known to the spender. Quantum's existence won't change that epistemic limitation. Third, there is no "we" to make such a choice. No group of people have the right to confiscate coins, no matter how rational the reason. And to *anyone* (not Matt specifically) who is worried about the market effect of huge selling, consider the market effect of the precedent of freezing coins at the protocol layer. Everything is a one-time exception until it isn't. Notice that that last point is not wrong because "if QC then all btc is worthless"; we are discussing the scenario of there being a migration path but old plain pubkey holders don't use it

Yes, IF someone could steal them, it would be better for the market to know some old bitcoin can be stolen and brought to market than know a dev or group of devs can freeze someone’s bitcoin. Seems kinda obvious really.