Alberto

@dotkrueger @real_vijay There are always 20 million. They only change owners, but there are always 20 million (and still growing).

Roughly one million BTC moved from OG sellers wallets over the last 12 months. There is not another one million left. The entire legacy supply overhang got vacuumed up.

@TheLaurenChen So 🎯!

It's crazy to me how Robin Hood is now popularized as "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" (Socialist messaging) In reality, Robin Hood stole back the taxes that a cruel leader unjustly levied against the population (Anti-socialist messaging)

@Excellion @JoeNakamoto 😂😂😂

@JoeNakamoto Did anyone ask if Adam will destroy quantum?

several friends have asked me if i think adam back is satoshi, and if quantum will destroy bitcoin this week we have a lot to do, don't we.

WhatsApp’s “encryption” may be the biggest consumer fraud in history — deceiving billions of users. Despite its claims, it reads users’ messages and shares them with third parties. Telegram has never done this — and never will 🤝

@TechLeviathan It would mean something if they HODL the bitcoin. If they sell I means nothing. Some buy to pay and the receiver sells it. Net 0. Only hodlers matter.

IRAN JUST BECAME THE BIGGEST BITCOIN BUYER ON EARTH Iran charges $2M in Bitcoin per ship to cross Hormuz At $72,000 per $BTC, each ship = 27.7 BTC ~130 ships cross daily For context: Miners produce 450 $BTC/day Iran earns 3,601 $BTC/day That's 8x the entire daily mining supply MicroStrategy took 4 years to stack 500K $BTC Iran could do it in 5 months... with a toll booth

@BitPaine @nic_carter Your worst twit ever! Usually agree with you, but this is so wrong in so many levels!!!

We’ve had approximately a dozen post-quantum proposals for Bitcoin in the last week and some of you still think @nic_carter is a bad actor. He triggered the entire community into action and moved this conversation forward by five years. Maxis will literally make bitcoin quantum secure just to spite Nic. 100D chess.

@coinjoined @csuwildcat @giacomozucco @avihu28 @robin_linus It’s a valid solution. Those ignorant enough to be worried about QCs can use it today and pay (fees) for their ignorance. Those that understand the QC risk (zero) can continue with current signature schemes

Absolutely it's undeniably impractical and a hardcore nonstandard workaround, but that's what makes it so interesting: pq protection is available today, without a soft fork. It's a start. For a treasury company, exchange, or whale genuinely worried about quantum risk, this offers a path to PQ-secure storage and spends right now for roughly the cost of a consumer hardware signer. it's basically just a one-time GPU bill in the low hundreds of dollars. That's a remarkably low price for immediate peace of mind

Nic either didn't make it past the first sentence of the paper or - surprise to absolutely nobody - doesn't understand how relay policy works. Amazing, considering we spent the last 18 months talking about nothing else The ingenuity of people like @avihu28 and @robin_linus never ceases to amaze.

@JohnCarreyrou Is this a joke? As a joke is quite bad, but if it is not a joke … it’s very funny!😂😂😂

The mystery of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin, has remained unsolved for 17 years. Not anymore. Read my 18-month investigation to find out who Satoshi really is. nytimes.com/2026/04/08/bus…

@1914ad It’s a mystery to me why anyone would listen to him. 🤡

Nic Carter once declared that the new human society would be built in the Metaverse. Now he’s a quantum computing expert.

@busyjordy @rperezmarco Started in 1980, in 2001 factored 15, in 2019 factored 21 (with a little trick). Still 21 is the record in 2026… Do you really think this is fast? They are getting better and better on marketing to fool the ignorant mass.

@aaldavem @rperezmarco just one example that they exist and are getting better fast: rudebaguette.com/en/2025/06/chi…

The problem they have with Bitcoin is that they cannot control it when still many millions of BTC are still in the wild in private custody, away from the control of the financial system. They want to KYC every satoshi and keep a majority of them in wallets if financial institutions. This explains the quantum computing non-sense FUD. Quatum computers don't exist and will never exist. End of story.

@busyjordy @rperezmarco The claim is far from retarded. Today’s QC cannot factor 35. Yes 35 = 7x5. So the claim is very 🎯🎯🎯

@rperezmarco Quantum computers are coming. We will find a solution to save Bitcoin from them, but to claim they don't exist or Never Will... is retarded

@adam3us @wtogami @GoogleQuantumAI @real_or_random 🎯🎯🎯

@GoogleQuantumAI @real_or_random another reason to favor the realist vs hype mentality, is it's extremely dangerous to rush cryptography; just look at the NIST PQ design competition, most of the candidates were broken or rejected as failing security evaluation criteria. we really can NOT rush in new cryptography

quantum hypers don't have to agree with quantum realists on timeline, as there is strong value in providing a step-up sequence of PQ readiness for bitcoin users, so they have a long migration time. it also makes it more plausible to deprecate unmigrated ECDSA/schnorr signatures.

@Excellion @JAN3com As always … 🎯 QC threat is indeed the urge to migrate to PQC. That’s the attack.

It’s been almost 10 years since the Blocksize Wars ended and Brian hasn’t changed at all. He still carries the exact same complete lack of humility and understanding. Brian forms the opinion first, along with a prescribed course of action and timeframe, instead of starting by understanding the nuanced problem and tradeoffs. Solving the QC problem later rather than sooner is the best course of action. ➡️ Hastily changing from ECDSA/Schnorr to PQ signatures may make Bitcoin vulnerable to classical computing attacks today. Simply put: make Bitcoin safe against quantum computers just to get pwned by normal computers. ➡️ PQ signatures will likely be 10-125x larger than current ones, and massively reduce throughput. Possibly paving the way for Blocksize Wars 2.0. (h/t @_jonasschnelli_) ➡️ Proposed PQ solutions could be a Trojan horse to implement backdoors for RNGs or PQ encryption schemes. There are examples of the NSA doing this, first discovered by cypherpunk researchers and later confirmed by @Snowden leaks. Given that quantum computers don’t actually exist and likely won’t exist for another 10-20 years, the worst possible course of action is to rush a fix. That’s not to say work shouldn’t be done to prepare, and there is already much work being done. If you’re still worried about quantum computing, you should know that Coinbase wallet infrastructure is vulnerable to QC because of address reuse. In fact, that’s the default for Coinbase Prime, which serves institutional clients. So Brian should probably fix this first. Physician, heal thyself.

@BitcoinPierre Come on! Not from you! QC threat is FUD. Study QM and QC. Don’t let them fool you.

The bad news is that Bitcoin has 3 years to survive the quantum threat. The good news is that we can get the solution any day, we just have to credibly commit to not instantly bury the BIP.

@_jonasschnelli_ Agreed!. Even more when the disease is fake.

Not enough people talk about the risks of rushing Bitcoin’s quantum “fix”: - PQ signatures are x-times larger than Schnorr - Either block size war 2.0 or <1 TPS - PQC algorithms have a fraction of the battle-testing ECDSA has The cure, rushed, could be worse than the disease.

@_Checkmatey_ @lukedewolf Yes. Still not a single logical qubit. Looking forward to 2029 to check the biggest number factored by a QC.

@aaldavem @lukedewolf Have you been following the ongoing disclosures? Buckle up.

A few thoughts on quantum: The debate around "if" vs "when" a CRQC comes to market is a fruitless one. You won't convince either side to switch, because there is little observable progress, and the risk is there may not be until its too late. The risk a CRQC comes to market is existential if Bitcoin doesn't have a credible plan of action. Risk is probability x consequence, and even if the probability is low, the consequence is 100%. Thus any sane actor should see developing a plan as worth the effort. Arguments that Bitcoin devs are doing nothing appear to be false. Arguments that 'we're all good, do nothing' are also mistaken. Reality is in between, it's a solveable issue, folks are working on it, AND we do NOT have a credible plan yet. Rushing PQ-cryptography is a massive risk, and is the wrong approach. Not developing a credible set of BIPs, is also a mistake. Coinbase and Nic absolutely have an incentive...to protect their bags and business models, which are massively long Bitcoin. They may also have incentives which are misaligned with Bitcoin, and yet that still doesn't disqualify their opinions. Coinbase has millions of BTC folks, they are the 'longest' entity in the world. Question them yes, but assuming pure malice without considering that they are capitalists looking after their interests, is frankly retarded. I'm a Bitcoiner who is massively long the asset (holdings and business), and I try my best to adopt a reasonable middle ground opinion of things. The two extremes of 'emergency' and 'no problem' are both wrong, because they do not understand the simple equation of risk = probability x consequence. I fully support the development of PQ BIPs for Bitcoin. I very much look forward to learning about the proposals, discussing the trade-offs, and doing what little I can to form consensus, and parse the complexities. Having a plan, and not needing it, is far better than needing a plan, and not having one. The truth is in the middle, and there is little benefit to debating in the quagmire of 'will-it, won't it' ever show up. A CRQC may never show up. In that case, the plan stays in the BIP repo as copy and unmerged, but fully reviewed code. What is a totally fucked result, is if we assume a CRQC won't show up, and then it does. Don't fuck this up, the middle ground is the correct path to walk. Probability x Consequence. Small number x 100% loss == take it seriously.

@BitPaine Don’t let the fud/hype blur your brain. Estimates of n of qubits were 2300 from 2017 MSFT paper. Now 1200? Ok, assuming is true, that’s not 10x. So no “orders of magnitude”. And yet we don’t even have 1 logical qubit with the needed error rate.

What has changed my thinking about the urgency of adding PQC to Bitcoin are the persistent non-linearities in QC progress and the shroud of secrecy underlying this research. When I see exponential progress - estimates of physical qubits dropping by orders of magnitude - this tells me we may not have much of a window between “quantum is on a trajectory to disrupt bitcoin,” and “secp256k1 is broken.” This is compounded by the secrecy and natsec implications, which mean 1) we likely don’t know where the state of the art truly is, and it is likely much further than what we know exists and 2) a CSQC may be developed in stealth mode and drop out of seemingly nowhere. I still think ~10 years is the more likely timeframe, but I assign an uncomfortably high likelihood that we see something disruptive within 5 years. High enough that action within the next 1-2 years is prudent. I don’t see a massive downside to adding PQC to Bitcoin too early. Worst case scenario it either doesn’t get used much or we have to upgrade it later. Both are reasonable trade offs to protect against an existential threat that could materialize without much warning.

@muhkayfabe @BitPaine People urging to change bitcoin to PQC just do NOT understand QC. Even what the paper claims is not true. Estimates from 2017 paper from MSFT were 2300 logical qubits. Now 1200? Ok, That’s not 10x. And There are tons of unsolved problems, not just number of qubits.

@BitPaine I hate to be that guy, but this just seems dangerously close to “logic doesn’t apply here.” From what I understand, a circuit’s error rate scales exponentially with the number of qubits, and so we should expect to see some progression in application size over time

@GonanEdogawa @mreiffy Looking forward to 2029… let’s see if they can factor at least a number that conventional computers can’t.

@mreiffy @aaldavem para que te rias un rato

Google is basically saying: “We’ve cut the quantum resources needed to break Bitcoin’s encryption by 20x. We can now break it. We can prove it. We’re just not going to tell you how. We’ve slowed down research to give crypto a chance. You have until 2029 to figure out a solution. Good luck.”