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.
Login to reply
Replies (12)
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.
I'll follow u for this.
BIP 6102
This is what Jameson lopp is trying to turn Bitcoin into in case you're wondering


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.
Sounds like a democracy in which human votes are counted.
Thank you for expressing my thoughts so clearly 👍
and only 15% running the latest version... so 85% of nodes will have unspendable coins if your "soft" forks go forward.
You have no idea what you're talking about, that statistic has no relationship to my BIP.
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.
