The Bitcoin Dialectic 🎙️

“Michael Saylor types are foaming at the mouth to confiscate coins and burn them... It makes zero f*cking sense.” Hunter Beast, author of BIP360, believes that post-quantum migration is not just another technical upgrade; it’s a test of our commitment to Bitcoin’s moral principles. Hunter (@cryptoquick) joins me for a technical but deeply philosophical discussion on the quantum threat to Bitcoin and the difficult tradeoffs that will shape how the network evolves. 00:00 - Trailer 00:56 - Introduction 09:00 - Understanding the Quantum Threat to Bitcoin 15:38 - Debunking Quantum Skeptics 25:44 - The Different Types of Quantum Computers 37:04 - The Challenges of Migrating Bitcoin 39:04 - BIP360 50:33 - How to Implement Post-Quantum Cryptography 55:59 - Satoshi's Coins & The "Hourglass" Solution 01:08:30 - Hunter's Take on @roasbeef's zk-STARKs 01:17:06 - BIP360 Tradeoffs 01:20:29 - Hunter’s Predictions 01:24:39 - Final Thoughts

Satoshi made a fatal error in defaulting mining rewards to exposed P2PK addresses. @cryptoquick wonders if Satoshi took the quantum threat too lightly. I wonder if we're still doing that.

@cashumeme @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick You've compelled me to reconsider the Freeze position 🙌

@Digvijay_BTC @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick Perhaps the only ultimate solution is a hard fork, leaving it to the market to decide which one is the true Bitcoin. However, I firmly advocate for the sanctity of private keys—not even the advent of quantum computing should be an exception

Freezing coins violates Bitcoin's social contract. The alternative doesn't have to be a quantum collapse. Hourglass by @cryptoquick threads the needle by limiting P2PK throughput to 1 BTC per block.

Strategy's @CJ_Bitcoin explains everything $STRC with exceptional clarity (as always)!

@annamillllckbr @crypto_0ptimist @cryptoquick Are you a bot? Would you admit to being a bot if you were one?

@Digvijay_BTC @crypto_0ptimist @cryptoquick the scoreboard says she won but we already knew

@cryptoquick @cashumeme @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl Haha yes, it's easy to forget that 32 years is no mean number in Bitcoin terms.

@Digvijay_BTC @cashumeme @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl We've discussed this and rejected it based on the complexity It's bikeshedding and 32+ more years is plenty to get the heatpunk movement bootstrapped That's twice longer than Bitcoin has existed

@cashumeme @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick But it's not just your valuables you're locking in a vault. It's everyone's valuables that are lying around. And none of them will have access to the vault.

@Digvijay_BTC @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick It is akin to knowing a thief will break into your home tomorrow, yet choosing not to lock your valuables in a vault. Given that Bitcoin has a fixed supply cap, a thief easily stealing Bitcoin that doesn't belong to them is equivalent to diluting everyone else's share.

@FreedomIsntSafe @MrHodl @cryptoquick Interesting.. didn't know this. But also, not very relevant in a scenario where there is a rush to move P2PK coins?

@Digvijay_BTC @MrHodl @cryptoquick P2PK utxo spend

LFG 🔥

@crypto_0ptimist @cryptoquick Hourglass also restricts the attacker because he will also have to get in line along with the people to spend the coins.

@Digvijay_BTC @cryptoquick Eventually yes... but probably we start at 1 key every month. Then 1 key every 3 weeks, etc... giving all people with funds at risk time to respond, Hourglass limits their exit speed, and doesnt limit the attacker since he cant crack that quickly anyway.

@crypto_0ptimist @cryptoquick If quantum is slower than Hourglass's 1 BTC per block limit, you have an equal amount of theft in Hourglass and in Do Nothing. Hourglass sets a ceiling on how much theft can happen. The floor is set by quantum computers.

@Digvijay_BTC @cryptoquick Hourglass is helpful only in the scenario where we go from quantum not existing, to quantum being able to Crack keys very quickly (cracking more than the lower limit Hourglass imposes). If quantum is cracking slower than that, you have less theft by not using hourglass.

@crypto_0ptimist @cryptoquick Why does the attacker not care about fees? Unless the attacker's sole mission is to destroy Bitcoin, they would care about how much they pocket, right? Also, there is a considerable grace period for people to move their coins to PQC addresses before the freeze.

@Digvijay_BTC @cryptoquick Living people who have bitcoin in a quantum susceptible address when q day arrives will not have this bottleneck. They can all move at once. Hourglass means that all these valid flights to safety will have to compete for less blockspace with an attack who doesnt care about fees

@crypto_0ptimist @cryptoquick Yes, but eventually the quantum computers will get better and faster. We need a plan that protects us sufficiently from all possibilities.

@Digvijay_BTC @cryptoquick I'm a fan of @cryptoquick work on quantum resistance, but I think that hourglass is a flawed approach. The most likely bottleneck for an attacker using a qc is calculating the pk, probably will need a few weeks per key at the start.

@Carnivore_BTC Can you explain what you mean by the proverb?

“不应该冻结 #BTC 账户，但可以限制高消费” 中国有句古话：五十步笑百步

@cashumeme @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick This is another interesting proposal... It takes away from the simplicity of Hourglass, but might still be worth looking into @cryptoquick

@Digvijay_BTC @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick then halving that limit every four years in tandem with the Bitcoin block reward halving.

@cashumeme @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick The majority of Satoshi's bitcoin being paid as fees to miners is an ideal outcome!

@Digvijay_BTC @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick Limiting the expenditure to 1 BTCper block for addresses with exposed public keys might still be too high. If thousands of entities possessed quantum computers and participated simultaneously, the majority of Satoshi’s bitcoin would likely end up as transaction fees paid to miner

@FreedomIsntSafe @MrHodl @cryptoquick The frequency at which what occurs currently?

@MrHodl @Digvijay_BTC @cryptoquick I heard them say that historically that is about the frequency they occur currently.

@cashumeme @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick I prefer keeping the door open for ALL kinds of coins and keys. But that's just me.

@Digvijay_BTC @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick For Bitcoin addresses with exposed public keys that have been inactive for over ten years, implement a pre-notification and freezing scheme. For those with exposed public keys inactive for less than ten years and holding less than 1 BTC, adopt an hourglass (gradual release）

@cashumeme @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick That's a perfectly fair question to ask! @cryptoquick has hinted at 1 BTC being chosen for being a simple round number that does enough to slow the steal. Maybe there are other ways to think about this.

@Digvijay_BTC @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick If an 'hourglass' (rate-limiting) scheme is implemented, what would be a reasonable limit on the amount of Bitcoin that can be spent from addresses with exposed public keys per block? If the limit is set at 1 BTC, why not 0.1 BTC, or even 0.001 BTC?

@cashumeme @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick It can also be bad luck, right? Like being unable to find the private key before the freeze, and only finding it after.

@Digvijay_BTC @w_s_bitcoin @MrHodl @cryptoquick If the amount held in such an address is substantial, laziness is no longer a valid excuse.

@randomu_goldend @MrHodl @cryptoquick Precisely! I'm trying my best to spread the word with whatever limited reach I have.

Its really genius in multiple ways. Hopefully it gets traction. That's all that's needed. Just hourglass. Nothing wild. Nothing frozen. Market as fixing lost coins using QCs, working with miners. After 8 years the almost 3 decades following basically get a doubled mining reward windfall. 144 BTC a day extra mined being bidded on.