Etc.
35.9K posts
Etc.
@ec265
ethereum enthusiast, staking savant, 50% insight and 50% shitposting and 50% complex mathematical comedy

JUST IN: Amsterdam officially bans public advertisements for meat.




i had many discussions about quantum & bitcoin in las vegas this week, both on and off stage, with skeptics, advocates, and many overall smart bitcoiners some consensus i feel is emerging: 1) satoshi’s coins (P2PK) should not be touched. violating his property rights could be disastrous for bitcoin’s core value proposition. but the risk is also lower than many realize — satoshi’s coins are in ~22,000 addresses, each of 50 BTC. a long range attack would have to crack them all (i.e., it’s not one giant honeypot). the giant honeypots are mostly exchanges or active entities who can upgrade to a PQ-address if needed, so mostly not realistically at risk. the hourglass proposal could also further mitigate if we thought long-range Qday was imminent meanwhile, neutral atom tech can only do long range attacks, and google quietly opened a neutral atom lab just prior to their recent paper (maybe just hedging, but possibly an admission of superconducting’s limitstions? unclear, but distinguishing between long & short range is essential, and impacts the satoshi-coin issue) data from @_Checkmatey_ and others also shows that bitcoin markets routinely absorb 1m+ BTC, even just from oct25 to pres, let alone during bull markets. suffer a 50% drawdown (even if it were possible to take all of satoshi’s coins) to preserve bitcoin’s core property rights? i think most bitcoiners would accept that trade off, particularly given the mitigations (satoshi’s many addresses, hourglass, and market’s capability to absorb them if needed) 2) it is good to work on new crypto for bitcoin, post-quantum or otherwise. developing it, testing it, compressing its signatures, proposing and debating implementation — all of these are good for bitcoin the risks are a) this work occupies people’s time, potentially diverting from other important work; b) something untested or too novel is added to the protocol; c) calls to implement on the protocol create consensus gridlock, hamper other upgrades but most people i talked with in las vegas agreed that background work, perhaps resulting in a new PQ implementation being “put on the shelf” in case it’s needed, is unequivocally a good thing. this mostly seemed to be a reasonable middle ground on the contentious mainstage panel as well, despite disagreements on urgency. perhaps with the right funding and resources, good work can be accomplished while 2a and 2b are mitigated? i do think quantum is a problem worth working on, even if there is only a 1% chance that it ever affects bitcoin. i also think alarm bells about urgency have ultimately been positive for pushing these discussions forward. but finally, i am also very encouraged that there are a lot of people who are indeed thinking deeply about the implications, mitigations, and solutions, including many bitcoin developers these are just my impressions and are definitely open to discussion and disagreement






















