whats more likely?
1) satoshi’s coin is stolen by a quantum attacker
2) saylor’s coin is stolen by the us gov
Login to reply
Replies (120)
Why not both? 😬
Witness the shitcoiner turning into the confiscator before our very eyes.
Why aren’t there primal polls yet? #stopthecount!
As of today Saylor owns 0 Bitcoins as I can't verify it on chain.
Any public company claim of Bitcoin ownership without an on chain proof means it is a lie.
2
Both "more likely"?
Creative.
PS: Saylor's Bitcoin is more likely to go to his creditors.
Neither. It is more likely the US govt will partner with Strategy as a new type of central bank. The appearance of distance between the govt and money is useful.
The quantum FUD makes no sense to me. The years-months before a private key is stolen, every single piece of traditionally encrypted information (banks, stocks, personal data, etc) would be vulnerable if not already gone.
The financial system as we know it would collapse.
Then, either bitcoins price goes near 0 to reflect the broader market in which case there isn’t even much incentive to steal anyone’s coins, or the market price skyrockets as it serves as the last form of digital property. In the latter case, we’d have a least a little bit of time to prepare quantum proof keys.
For one thing, there’s no such thing as Quantum Computing….
#2 is more likely.
#1 moment it is detected that $400B worth of BTC is suddenly moving for no obvious reason, that $400B shrinks to maybe $400M. Making it far below profitability burning a one-time surprise attack opportunity exposing the existence of a powerful enough QC and even despite this occurring, Bitcoin will survive. It will be messy for a bit but nothing insurmountable once it's apparent a powerful QC exists (Grubles, notgrubles…. And I agree).
“It's so obvious these posts are trying soo hard to make a big deal out of this.”
2 and it’s not even close
2. No doubt.
Neither. If the USG steals MicroStrategy’s coins, it would spark the largest self-custody insurgence in Bitcoin’s history. Mt. Gox and FTX would pale in comparison.
Controllers fear self-custody above all else because it hinders domestication. They’ve made significant progress towards this goal over the last few years, and a move like that would brutally remind people why “not your keys, not your coins” exist in the first place.
View quoted note →
They have to result to 2 because 1 is a pipe dream for them
2. Lmao.
>banks, stocks, personal data, etc would be vulnerable
Well no, because most banks are already well on the road to post-quantum. Most major browsers support hybrid PQC handshakes. Some larger banks have enabled this on their public-facing web servers. The backend cryptographic elements for most major banks are already PQC, and no major bank is going to non-PQC keys for any new internal project in 2026.
As for personal info, Signal has migrated already (they started some years ago, being smart). Google drive is already protected by hybrid PCQ and well on the way to full.
Just because the Bitcoin is by and large in denial, doesn't mean everyone else is.
Having Saylor's coins disappear would be a great gift.
1)
2
depends where they ‘disappear’ to
2 goes first
What?? No it wouldnt.
🤣
2)
Correct answer
So then it seems pretty straight forward for Bitcoin devs to follow the trend and upgrade to match the broader industry.
Don’t freeze any keys, just allow people to use quantum resistant addresses
1)
Also a quick ai search says that the broader industry is not quantum resistant. But maybe you know something that it doesn’t. It said they use RSA and ECC.
Wouldn’t bitcoin just need to go from SHA256 to say SHA512, SHA1024.
I am probably being naive especially since I know very little about cryptography.
You'd think so!
The reality is that Bitcoin hasn't even chosen a key type yet, let alone put the wheels in motion for a protocol-wide transition. Everything is stuck in philosophical debates about if to upgrade at all, and if yes then how. And that's for bitcoiners talking about it at all, most are stuck on jpegs in the op return.
Citibank, HSBC and the like are about 7 years ahead of Bitcoin at this point.
That depends. Are Satoshi's pubkeys a number greater than 21? Because so far that puts them out of quantum reach.
2.
For Bitcoin, it's not SHA256, it's secp256k1. (The near-term threat from quantum is to the wallet keys.)
You have to move all wallet keys to a type such as Falcon.
Falcon (signature scheme) - Wikipedia
Or keep your pubkeys secret. No address reuse, native segwit. The mempool time is a threat vector, but you'd need a REALLY fast quantum computer to snipe those assuming they pay competitive fees.
That said solving the mempool issue with an optional address type to shut down the FUD would be nice even if I do believe it's a non-issue for decades if not longer.
It's wild that people can see Jamie Dimon buying and assume that he just must have overlooked the quantum threat which they're smart enough to give accurate risk value to.
The hubris is palpable.
Trading is fine. You can exit anytime.
This is about the life-expectancy of the protocol itself.
MSTT doesn’t even hold their own keys
😂
We should freeze both.
Actually we should freeze everyone's coins
ooooh
is this the latest Polymarket? i want in.
+1 on Quantum🤘
2 all day everyday
🫡💯
3
I think 1 will happen on a long enough time frame more than likely from a government it’s not going to be some random person with access to a quantum computer at first
Both will happen before the Epstein files drop
Since 1) is totally impossible for at least 20 more years, then 2)... although I think it's much more likely that you'll be struck by lightning.
2 - that honeypot already looking primed up. EO6102v2 on deck next regime change.
I thought 2 already happened.
He’s got mor A4 than WH Smith’s… ok WH Smith’s is a bad example now they’ve gone under but I’m still hilarious imo.
#2 By a country mile.
I'll have you know Smiths have pivoted into wind farms 😂
State Capitalism means the USG owns equity in Public Corps in their Jurisdiction
They already have a claim on his bitcoin and his company
3) no one takes my btc
Wow, because Saylor’s so full of wind?! Impressive pivot Mr Smith!
One of the primary solutions Bitcoin is supposed to solve is that it will evolve and be competitive forever, or at least as long as money is needed.
In a world with quantum computation, unlimited energy, and abundance, money doesn’t serve as much of a purpose.
Idk, half of the internet crashes whenever AWS or cloud flare goes down. Bitcoin is much more resilient then the rest of the internet infrastructure encryption aside.
I agree. The day the US gov takes a stake in strategy we will see a god candle
2)
Great point.
lol. You want to put some BTC on that?
satoshi moves BTC on Xmass
Can you do actual polls on here yet?
The protocol itself isn't remotely threatened by quantum. Old coins are -- the risk is that we get a sudden supply influx of 20% of the outstanding coins. That is, a one time sale. Except that when it happens, banking rails will be threatened by quantum -- unclear how anyone offloads the coins at that point.
Nah, this is paid for FUD to shake people free of their coins.
Unlimited energy would be a fun one, given that it'd violate the law of conservation of matter and energy.
More energy through breakthroughs perhaps, but given that we still have parts of the planet using WOOD as their primary energy source (not even coal) the risk of a post scarcity energy economy seems far fetched at best.
Even in Star Trek they needed to source dilithium to power their starships, despite having no use for gold, and the ability to send subspace transmissions.
I'd bet on getting access to the pleasure planet of Risa long before infinite energy, or even enough to make money unnecessary.
Lol is it even a question. 2 of course.
How about adding another alternative in your poll, @ODELL?
3) Coinbase, with ~3 million BTC in custody are hacked
Numero dos
3) all plebs align to freeze saylors coins for the lulz
That will be merged with point 2 because Saylor do not have any BTC, only IOUs from Conbase...
Oh that would be huge…🫣
He doesn't have any, coinbase does.
Hacking Coinbase? That’s why decentralization isn’t just a buzzword 😎⚡️ #NotYourKeysNotYourCoins
2
Or the 911 or jfk piles. All same shit different pile. Burn it all to ground.
#2, but it's okay because it's "for national security TM"
Saylor is going down baby
"Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked” - quote Warren Buffet
Ref. @ODELL's poll:
“what’s more likely?
1) satoshi’s coin is stolen by a quantum attacker
2) saylor’s coin is stolen by the us gov”
——————————————
Mass withdrawals from Coinbase-IOU’s, into self custody freedom money, would in effect be a bank run on Coinbase to “discover who's been swimming naked.”
Bank runs can happen quickly on issuers of Bitcoin-IOU’s from custodians like FTX, Mt. Gox, Coinbase, Celsius, BlockFi etc.
Ask yourself.
What would happen if the following categories started mass withdrawals for Coinbase-IOU’s on Sunday evening?
• plebs
• @npub15dql...lm5m
• freedom fighters
• “Strategy” AKA $MSTR
• every other major BTC “Treasury” Company
•11/12 US Spot Bitcoin ETFs, except Fidelity / $FBTC, which, according to them self, practices self custody.
What would happen with the BTC-price denominated in filthy fiat currencies, after the Coinbase bank run?
But remember what @Jeff Booth have tried to teach you in 21+ Bitcoin-podcast interviews:
“You can’t measure the system, from within the system”
——————————————
“Not your keys not your coins”🔑
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
Game theory it out. As a pure thought experiment let’s say today there exits a military lab somewhere in Asia that just successfully tested a machine running 2.5k logical qubits (superconducting), 1 billion gates, whatever, key point it's enough to crack a key every hour or so, maybe 30 mins. And possible to make more.
Their goal, as part of a wider strategem, is to end Bitcoin, collapse it, cause as much panic in the west as possible.
What's their plan? How do the execute it? What happens when they do? What triggers what, and what cascades into what?
When you game theory it out you quickly realise it’s not a case of some 20 % of outstanding coins returning to the supply, we all have coffee, tomorrow is another day.
No no, it’s very bad.
Here are some things to consider
- They will have built up a supply of pre-cracked private keys to use all at once, for wallets with exposed pubkeys and the biggest balances
- For anyone with funds in a wallet that does not have an exposed pubkey, as soon as they hit 'send' the pubkey is visible to the lab.
- If the network is busy (which it certainly will be during a great panic) transactions can sit in the mempool for hours, even days.
- The lab will announce (true or not) that they can actually crack wallet keys in 10 minutes, and will pay anyone [insert low about] for their bitcoin now, or steal it on first attempt to move, your choice.
-And on and on. Add your own.
Users are terrified to move their money. If you leave it, it might be stolen later. If you move it, it is stolen now. Desperate users try to outbid the hackers by setting $5k USD transaction fees to get their funds in a pubkey hidden wallet. The lab, with its infinite stolen coin, simply sets their theft-fee even higher. The mempool fills with millions of transactions that will never clear. People break their transactions into small bits hoping some will get through. This just increases the congestion.
As the price collapses (which obviously it will) miners see the possibility they'll be hit with electricity bills they can't pay. The hash rate starts to drop off. With the hash rate in trouble the block time stretches even longer. This makes the sniper attack even more effective, as the lab has lots of time to crack a single key while a transaction sits in the frozen mempool.
By the end of the first week, the lab don't just have some coins. They have effectively destroyed the consensus reality of the asset, a knockout blow from which Bitcoin cannot recover.
This is of course a fantasy today. But it might not be a fantasy in 5 years, or 10 years. We are at 100 logical qubits, we need 2,000. That's not a huge jump. Gate numbers will move. Last month was a massive error-correction breakthrough over at Harvard. Other breakthroughs will happen. If at the time that this thought experiment vector actually exists and everything on the bitcoin side is just as it is today, well then, lights out.
Even if such quantum tech has only a 20% chance of existing in the next 10 years, why tempt fate but delaying the migration? It'll take years anyway, why not make it the #1 priority from today?
Spot the difference?
C) All of the above
Do they?
I love your story. And I wholeheartedly agree with the game theory. You should write a book with that plot. It would be very entertaining and probably encourage devs to push updates.
Couldn’t quantum also reenforce the hashing as well? Being an extremely efficient compute resource?
I just listened to Stephen Perrenod and he claims google is on the order of 1000 physical qubits and 1-10 logical cubits. Assuming an aggressive moores law they should double logical qubits about every 1-2 years. This gives us a deadline of 10 years conservatively. We should probably push a solution in the next 5 years.
He also reinforced that trad fi uses RSA and ECC and the quantum threat will actually incentivize movement *towards* Bitcoin, not away from it due to its antifragile nature.
Set up your zap wallet and I’ll zap you for that insight
Both are inevitable
Not sure why the network would be busy when the only dangerous move would be sending a tx, particularly during a time with a full mempool.
Meanwhile, this would be a very dedicated attack, and it'd be odd given how much more valuable so many other things are. Even at $1M bitcoin becomes a $20T asset. Global banking systems, nuclear launch codes, or heck, trusted trade secrets all become much more juicy targets, especially given that Bitcoin loses value dramatically in this scenario.
Given that nation states need Bitcoin more than most plebs even do (whether they realize it yet or not -- to defease their debt) this nightmare situation just doesn't seem to reflect anyone's actual incentives.
Epic
2 ++
lol
China needs Bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn’t need China.
How about voting yourself, @npub15dql...lm5m?
How about connecting a working LN-address, which will enable sovereigns to zap you freedom money, @9x9?
You cannot have a currency where one entity steals 30% - 50% of the entire supply in 24 hours and it retains its value. It is guaranteed to crash. Same as a body going in to shock.
And this is just one game theory. There are 100 others. The community can try to poke little holes in them all -- or it just roll up sleeves and get to work migrating. What seems smarter?
So you say both are possible?
How about adding a 4th alternative in your poll, @ODELL?
4) @npub15dql...lm5m executes his hard fork of Bitcoin:
Bitcoin Saylor’s Vision $BSV
View quoted note →
A high profile billionaire using a KYC exchange or a pseudonymous 'someone' via an unsignaled quantum break - specifically targeting Satoshis? I think a seizure of Saylors (Strategy) stack makes for a bigger statement given the amount of time he's spent building, it would knock the wind out of the whole community. Plus, both would be state level attacks. Saylor could be 1 administration change away from government theft, quantum could be 10 years away.
I'm struck by lightning every day on Nostr
I would put the probability of both at sub 5%
1) sub 1% (especially in next 5 years)
2) sub 5% (not impossible, but would totally destroy any faith in US government and property rights,
so I don’t think the incentive is actually that strong)
Just depends, QuEra/Harvard ran fault tolerant algos on 96 logical qubits a couple weeks ago, error rate going down with scale, that was a shocker. Round two from that team early 2026 (trying to scale gates) could be a good indication.
It's kinda funny, so many bitcoiners super bullish on emerging tech, gene editing, AI, nuclear fusion .. except when it comes to quantum then suddenly everyone turns Amish.
Banger @ODELL
View quoted note →
+How are you my friend I am from Yemen and we suffer from wars and problems and my financial situation is very difficult can you help me buy food for my family they eat humanitarian service
How about adding a 5th alternative, @ODELL?
5) The white / lite gray Swan 🦢 arrived in October?
View quoted note →
why bother about hijacked coin - all corp controlled coins will be SEIZED when push comes to ... wait 10years
2) 3) and 5) ref. @jack mallers?
View quoted note →
I’m bullish on all of it. I think it’s an opportunity to harden and prove the antifragility of the protocol
So we can expect 6102 and quantum computing in 100 years.
2
2, not even close
2 across the board 🤣
hey -- we want to send you a test zap, but couldn’t find a NIP-05 or ⚡ lightning address on your profile. u can set one up for free on rizful 
... then pls reply here and we will do a test zap.
Rizful: Lightning Services
Free Lightning vaults, and instant, disposable Lightning Nodes.
3. You being WRONG about funding core devs
Between P2PK and P2TR addresses combined, there's about 4.15 million BTC. Not sure where you get the 30-50% number from.
Not that I'm opposed to some new softfork to make a new address type. It'll probably have to be done eventually, and may as well be worked on sooner rather than later (though, frankly, CTV and CSFS seem a far bigger priority). It'd also not do any harm to have as long as it's done without opening the door for more inscription nonsense. Might be nice to see something used even less than taproot for a change :-D.
2
All right, it did occur to me I should be including reused addresses which use a hash rather than exposed pubkey. Don't have those numbers in front of me but it does seem likely we'd at least get in your range.
Yeah, hard to say exactly, but it's a lot. Enough of the supply that they'd be far too influential going forward.
Also the in-flight "sniped" transactions. The more panic the attacker causes the more congestion, so the longer it takes for transactions to clear, the more chance the lab to snipe transactions in flight. Once they see the pubkey for a big one they run the private key, they get the private key output before it's cleared, they punch in RBF with massive fees from their already stolen supply (anything less than the value of the bitcoin being transferred is profit) and they pick off some big ones. These all add up. A lot of people move their coin out of panic not knowing if their pubkey is exposed or not (not really sure what that even means).
This is why their main goal is to cause panic, chaos and critically massive congestion in the first 3 days. If they can slow it down to hours, they win big. They might also have a plan to pay off miners to slow down the hash rate.
It's actually quite a fun one to game theory out.
hi -- we were trying to zap you -- but it looks like you haven’t set up a NIP-05 or ⚡ lightning address yet — grab one free at .. then pls reply here and we will try zapping you...
Rizful: Lightning Services
Free Lightning vaults, and instant, disposable Lightning Nodes.
They are both impossible