Replies (126)
This was a good read.
The great Jameson Lopp has spoken. No need for further discussion you lowly worms!
if the network decided to freeze anyone’s coins, I would sell all of my bitcoin and consider this a failed project. The entire thesis would be broken.
Conversely, all the folks who were staying out due to fears of quantum theft can buy your coins.
that’s great. I’m here for unencumbered property rights, which that would shatter. I bet you’d love to get your filthy hands on someone else’s coins.
The science of quantum computing is far from settled, but from my perspective the game theory of this scenario is settled. Feel free to contribute novel perspectives that could alter the game!
Ah yes, good point. In other words, there's the issue of "sacrificing" JBOK wallets in order to preserve HD wallets.
It's unknowable. I don't think it can be proven or disproven. All we can know is what level of effort has been expended in trying to achieve it.
As explained in the article, property rights get shattered in either case, so it's a moot point.
by definition, you would have to do this preemptively to any “quantum attack” which may never come. it’s a nice talking point though.
Yea, though minor nit: HD doesn’t necessarily mean seedphrase, though I think basically the only modern wallet this applies to is Bitcoin Core.
and that's SO MANY people...
OK so now both sides of the dumbass op_return debate are calling for a contentious fork for different reasons. I'm about to become a monero bro I stg
Can buy their coins? How would that work in this scenario?
Clearly. And no one is seriously claiming this should be done today.
What we're saying is we should be PLANNING today for all possible contingencies.
Please link source… interested in impact on pre-Segwit
Calling for a quantum fork TODAY would clearly be contentious.
Everything I'm proposing is PLANNING so that we have well thought out options to choose from in the future IF quantum computing progresses to the point of being a real concern.
if we want to plan, we need to give the free market the ability to CHOOSE whether they go to quantum resistant addresses or not.
there is no scenario where the network should freeze someone else’s coins. it’s absolute nonsense and destroys bitcoin’s fundamental value, which you seem keen on doing.
There is no "source" other than this conversation - it's all theoretical.
Okay so what happens to pre-segwit coins… assuming they can be signed for?
I think you'll find burning / seizing old coins to be a Rubicon most bitcoiners are unwilling to cross.
In terms of number of humans, maybe.
In terms of economic majority of holding entities, I point you to Saylor as a prime example of how I expect whales to act.
They would remain frozen until a transaction with a signature that is accompanied with an appropriate ZK proof is broadcast.
Opt-in PQC makes sense today when the threat is remote.
If the threat becomes imminent then opt-in only becomes far less useful.
I'm on team human.
who decides whether a quantum threat is “imminent?”
why should anyone trust an “altruistic” actor to destroy someone’s property rights before a quantum computer does?
how do you know coins are lost or if someone has chosen not to move to quantum resistant addresses?
I’m sorry but I’m not falling for this bullshit where the network gives away its rights under the guise of an altruistic actor.
It sets a dangerous precedent. In the future, what “attacks” will be deemed serious enough to again infringe on property rights?
bitcoin’s fundamental value comes from the fact that the network cannot under any circumstance freeze your funds. If I choose not to go to quantum resistant addresses, and a quantum computer cracks my keys, that’s on me and it was my choice.
This all stinks of bullshit from someone that wants to infringe on property rights.
Jameson I just don’t get it… I don’t understand how you can both claim Libertarian values and advocate for this…
If pre-Segwit coins are coerced into following a chain with zkp that is not backward compatibility
Now I could be potentially misinterpreting what you’re advocating here and I will willingly concede if so… but since this is a theoretical conversation there’s way for me to verify
However, my intuitive understanding of pre-segwit signing schemes is pretty hardwired and so when I run through this scenario in my mind I don’t understand you
What if you can proof you could sign before a particular block height?
Corey Santa Diego
Question and idea:
QC doesnt put bitcoins historical blockchain at risk right? So if someone creates an OTS proof they own the coins now (I.e. OTS stamping the hash of a signed txn that is never broadcasted), could there be a pathway for spending vulnerable coins post QC if they can produce an OTS proof that existed prior to QC?
View quoted note →
Well said !
You are 100% correct. Brute force guessing of private keys has always been and will always be a possibility. Once we allow this to be justification for stealing (aka freezing) coins, Bitcoin will cease to provide any assurance of property ownership. Your coins will only be secure as long as the anointed high priests of Bitcoin core say so.
thanks 🫡 it is very important that we defend property rights in bitcoin or else everything is lost.
Think about this from the physical perspective. Some (even Satosi) have said that bitcoin is a bit like digital gold.
Freezing quantum vulnerable coins basically means that, if you do the hard work and find a long time ago lost gold treasure, and then you don't get to keep it and it will be destroyed. That's quite insane.
We should use effort to develop more quantum safety measures and teach people how to use them, but freezing other people's coins just to "protect' them is not the way to go imo.
spot on and you summed it up much better than I did🤣
Couldn’t agree more. Property rights are sacred.
Seems to me there are more and more conversations in Bitcoin that propose a violation of such rights.
As Bitcoin matures and grows, the frequency of people who wish to violate property rights will likely grow as well.
We must always stand up for what’s right.
spot on
Of course that Jameson Slopp who is a bad actor, evil shitcoiner and manipulator is trying to manipulate you again by saying he presents both cases but he clearly is in favor of stealing / freezing the coins.
I'll follow u for this.
and I will follow anyone who respects property rights🫡 nice to meet you sir
yeah, is a centralized authority going to resell them after seizure?
first to be frozen: mr slopp
BIP 6102
This is what Jameson lopp is trying to turn Bitcoin into in case you're wondering
We need to freeze Satoshis Bitcoin to stop someone getting rich if they hack him!!!
Yeah um, if quantum computing is a threat to Bitcoin, it's a threat to the entire financial system, all cryptography etc.
In which case none of it matters.
You're proposing seizing and freezing people's Bitcoin over a fake threat which if it was real would be a bigger threat to everything else anyway.
How does stealing people's Bitcoin prevent a fake threat?
A threat that if it was real would also destroy the entire financial industry anyway.
If you're worried about quantum computing being a threat to Bitcoin maybe you should start gardening because there will be food shortages if that happens when farmers can't be paid dollars to buy fuel for their tractors etc.
How is it possible for you to be on the wrong side of EVERY issue in Bitcoin Lopp?
Ok, let’s try something: chocolate or vanilla?
That type of scheme is theoretically doable but I don't find it practical because almost nobody is going to bother.
No one can be coerced into anything. It's all voluntary. If an economic supermajority decides they no longer wish to accept transactions that could be a quantum adversary, they are free to do so.
Your son is a ketamine addict that shitposts on twitter 18 hours a day mam.
Nobody likes him, his fans are all bots.
Who?
I've already started stacking litecoin
Every individual node operator decides for themselves which rules they accept.
Beyond that, what rules become "Bitcoin" in practice are whatever subset of rules have the overwhelming majority of economic actors enforcing them.
That's fine, but Bitcoin is not a democracy in which human votes are counted.
Planning as a word is contentious and raising hackles. Discussing possible responses isnt contentious. We're a long way from planning stages. That's for when you want to get detailed on a particular proposal that's arisen through discussion.
There has never been a single instance of quantum compute without classical intervention - massively parallel classical compute is not equivalent to quantum compute
You made up a theoretical adversary to exploit people’s ignorance to push zkps to mimic other chains that scale differently… just be honest
oh OK, who's running all the nodes? ETF's? BTC Treasury companies?
Well I don't want to accept transactions like this.
Most other people also don't.
Whoever wants to.
“Let’s say we are bad actors, what are you going to do to stop us?”
Says the Eth Laser Eye shitcoiner.
Go run Citrea on ETH, or ₿ Cash.
Shill’s gonna shill.
Slopp would make Core a private business if he could.
We need some better implementations.
This ain’t gonna cut it.
people already think youre a sell out. stop trying to prove them right. bitcoin is for all people. not just billionaires.
Yes, a quantum adversary is theoretical, but it's catastrophic if it becomes practical.
ZKPs are an afterthought, I haven't even explored it deeply. If you have an alternative proposal for how to construct a proof of HD wallet ownership that doesn't require broadcasting the xpub globally and exposing it to quantum adversaries, I'm all ears.
FYI, accusing someone of having underhanded motives is not a great tactic for progressing constructive rational discourse.
Actually they have been arguing to make core into a private company
I look forward to seeing your "better implementations."
I suggest you get to work building them instead of crying on social media.
Bitcoin is a democracy.
Nodes are votes.
You're just a shitcoiner
you've already lost 1/4 of the market share to dasjr and that guy's fuckin nuts
A natural consequence of building a huge audience is that some of them will hate you as a result of your words or actions. Some people hating me doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Bitcoin is for anyone, though it's clearly not for everyone, nor does it operate via any known governance model. If you're bothered by the power distribution of entities in Bitcoin, you're always free to leave.
Brainwashed puritan pleb market share, sure.
In terms of actual economic market share, notsomuch.
I dunno man, money can motivate people.
😂
Just tell them to stay humble and stack sats to diffuse them.
Good luck with BIP 6102
My life’s good.
No tears here.
There are no quantum adversaries lol what if a black hole opens up and swallows us all whole and we’re spit out into another multiverse? That’s as relevant to this conversation as what you are suggesting
I’m not assuming underhanded motives… this is public information
Are you not funded by the same people who have aligned interests as Palantir? Did those folks not initially invest in opencoin? Did those same wallets not fund the development of XRP and other coins that are considered quantum secure?
You brought up ZKPs I didn’t
Hell yeah bro 😎
Stay humble and Stack Sats
you'll fork off before I "leave"
"let's do a hardfork cause Saylor wants to"
"you're free to leave"
dude we won't have to leave. all the suitcoiners will leave and we plebs can just run core v29 forever lol
Man your arguments are deeply flawed.
The fact that you think I'm making an argument shows how ignorant you are.
I wonder why Bitcoin has so little uptake.
None of these are hard forks.
Yes, you're free to continue running whatever node software you wish.
Sounds like a democracy in which human votes are counted.
Saylor is no economic entity, he produces nothing and renders no services. My barber around the corner has more economic activity than Saylor.
There are no quantum adversaries YET, but I literally talked to some of the most likely future ones at the quantum summit this year.
You'll need to be more specific regarding your conspiratorial questions. I'm not personally funded by anyone, rather I am a funder of dozens of companies and organizations. Casa has been funded by several VC firms over the years, but they don't tell us what to do nor do my Casa duties have much relation to my Bitcoin ecosystem projects.
odd. there’s always this ‘extreme edge case’ focus with you
Yes, I’m the conspiracy theorist here 😂 alrighty go get paid off by IBM and verus coins of the past a little harder
👋
rofl
welcome brethren
It's because Bitcoin is incredibly well designed. All of the low hanging fruit has been harvested, now we're just trimming fringe along the edges.
Thank you for expressing my thoughts so clearly 👍
The evil shitcoiner and manipulator Slopp strucks again.
Plebs who consider Bitcoin Freedom Money and not a spam dump are brainwashed?
Thats not true of course, they are not brainwashed.
As for economic market share, Saylor is not in favor of spam and jpegs on Bitcoin.
Admittedly, I am a mid-brain just beginning to get into this stuff.
But from what I hear the number of workable qubits is growing very quickly, and that is accelerating.
The implication of that is that instead of looping for eons to find a solution to a problem all possible solutions within that qubit space can be attempted, basically simultaneously.
This seems to reduce the probability that doing nothing is a workable strategy.
I don’t have an informed opinion for how Bitcoin needs to solve this.
But it seems clear to me that (without wanting to sound alarmist), we do need to work on this … very soon.
how tf will you confiscate coins without a hard fork
🫡
God has no sons
🌍 The concept of God is summarized in the Quran as:
📖 { “Say, He is God, the One. God, the Absolute. He does not give birth, nor was He born, and there is nothing like Him.”} (Quran 112:1-4) 📚
and only 15% running the latest version... so 85% of nodes will have unspendable coins if your "soft" forks go forward.
I'd agree with your conclusion, but it's moot. A cyptographically relevant quantum computer is physically impossible.
you can’t have an honest discussion with someone with dishonest motives.
You should present your proof of this claim to the world so that we can save countless time and resources.
You have no idea what you're talking about, that statistic has no relationship to my BIP.
Or with someone who has no understanding of the issue!
it tells me 85% of the network just wants to cruise and forcing them to transfer their coins to a new wallet type won't happen.
I read the article, I read the BIP. I am trying to think through this rationally and not jump to any conclusions one way or another. Can you elaborate on one thing for me? It looks, from my reading, that the biggest argument for freezing / burning / whatever the "vulnerable" coins is because if they come to market they will have a negative price impact. Am I interpreting this correctly?
you sound like a politician spewing deception hoping enough retards will nod their heads and go along with you
Thank goodness I'm neither a politician nor do I need to convince the retards!
That's one major issue. Other issues are incentivizing procrastinators to upgrade their security, plus protecting users from losing their coins to an attacker.
Matt Corallo
I believe you missed that disallowing “Quantum Recovery” is required in order to allow a majority of coins to be recovered by their rightful owners! We can allow people to spend funds if they can prove that they were built using a seedphrase and they know the seedphrase, but this only works if vulnerable spend paths are prevented!
View quoted note →
Your asking me to prove a negative and you quantum believers are the ones who lack proof. You want to invest in my perpetual motion machine? Prove I can't build one. Don't trust, verify. We can talk about quantum resistance when the first shor pops. We will have plenty of time before they can make it economically scalable, if that ever happens, which it won't, because that's not how the universe works.
I'm not a quantum "believer" - it sounds to me like you admit that it can neither be proven nor disproven.
Thus claiming it's impossible is just as much bullshit as claiming it's inevitable.
For the 99th time, no one is proposing a hard fork.
The chain only splits if a nontrivial amount of hashrate chooses to resist the soft fork.
Turning Bitcoin into a wef cbdc just to protect your dickbutt nfts?
Your nfts will be worthless.
Nobody wants your garbage on the chain, you're worse than core.
Your node client is a direct attack on Bitcoin.
Fortunately it makes up less than 1% of the network.
The difference is that I am not advocating a drastic, risky, insecure modification to the Bitcoin network based on my opinion. I think the burden of proving it IS possible is on you. Since you agree that your position is unfalsifiable bullshit, let's do nothing for now
Why should I be more worried about algorithmic breakthroughs for quantum computers than for classical computers?
Everyone must trust this "expert". He is expert on everything, mostly on shitcoins.
so when you said people would buy my bitcoin if I didn't send it to a new quantum resistant address, that was just a figure of speech? cause the coins would be burned forever right?
No, I thought it was blindingly obvious that if you intend to sell your coins in order to protest a mandatory migration, you'd need to send them to an exchange BEFORE the migration deadline.
who's selling? we can keep using our coins after you split off, they just wont be compatible.
Made some fan art for BIP 6102
there is nothing wrong with mimicking a good enhancement that occurred on another chain. this idea that it's impossible for another chain to come up with something good before bitcoin does is a totally recent maxi derangement.
mimicking good enhancements was the original basis of bitcoin maximalism. not invented here syndrome is prideful obstructionism.
you’re not even a well trained bot … 😭
i can be your angle... or yuor devil
In a Pascal's wager sort of sense.
The thing is, for this to work, it'd have to be done BEFORE a quantum threat arises.
And it never may.
But let's just assume we need to operate like it will for fear of the theoretical repecussions however unfounded they are.
At least the thief is honest about what they are. You have the audacity to suggest your theft is somehow justified.
I am. Planning to buy some cheap sats when some treasure hunters show up. And then planning to be sad when it ends faster than anyone expected because they can only be compromised once.
Maybe we should freeze Coinbase's coins too as it's only a matter of time before they end up with governance that causes them to blow up, and they hold keys to a huge chunk of the network.
There's also non-BIP39 phrases, such as Electrum.
So what I am hearing is. Wall Street determines the will of the Bitcoin network? I thought become meant freedom and free from coercion.
Wall Street will effectively control Bitcoin if everybody gives their bitcoin to wall street.
It remains to be seen if that becomes the case. I'd say it's not looking great.
