OrangeStandard

420 posts

OrangeStandard

OrangeStandard

@orange_std

#Only₿itcoin #Miner #FullNoder #AI에게일자리빼앗기고있는아키텍트

Katılım Mart 2022
54 Takip Edilen124 Takipçiler
OrangeStandard
OrangeStandard@orange_std·
@BTCBreadMan No you are wrong. Let them go. If you got Satosi’s utxos with QC, I will just say “Congratulation!! You found the Treasure Island” Don’t forget! Never break protocol.
English
0
0
0
6
Breadman
Breadman@BTCBreadMan·
I guess what I’m saying is that we should get out in front of this thing and destroy Bitcoin ourselves, before quantum gets a chance to do so. You always want to meet the enemy on your terms, not their terms.
English
0
0
15
228
Breadman
Breadman@BTCBreadMan·
I don’t think you guys understand. We MUST freeze the old coins and censor the uncensorable money. If we do not do so, then the uncensorable money may be at risk.
English
11
9
89
1.9K
OrangeStandard
OrangeStandard@orange_std·
@m_mccoole @mohrt @mikeinspace 표적이 되면 뭐?? 니꺼아니잖아 뭐가 문제야?? 가격떨어질까봐?? 헤이 브로 그건 비트코인정신이 아니야. 가격은 노이즈고, 진실은 수학이야.
한국어
0
0
0
19
M McCoole
M McCoole@m_mccoole·
@mohrt @mikeinspace The public key is exposed on some of the earliest BYC transactions so they are at more of a quantum risk. Also wallets hodl so much value so they would be the obvious first targets of potential quantum hacks
English
2
0
3
119
Mike In Space
Mike In Space@mikeinspace·
So let’s say Satoshi is alive and decides to move all his coins to a quantum-safe address. How does the market react to 1 million “lost” coins waking up?
English
21
2
67
5.4K
OrangeStandard
OrangeStandard@orange_std·
@stephanlivera Price is noise. QC hacked coins are just “Liquidity“. 2100 is only the number.
English
0
0
0
40
Stephan Livera
Stephan Livera@stephanlivera·
I'm against BIP361, and burning/freezing quantum-vulnerable coins in general, but we should talk supply implications: The pro-freezing camp are arguing that there will be a BIG active, tradeable supply difference. Currently the number of vulnerable BTC is in the 6-7M BTC ballpark. Assume we activate BIP360 P2MR and things like SHRINCS/SHRIMPS. The question is, how many of those currently vulnerable coin owners upgrade? The pro-freezers argue that people may be slow to update if they underestimate CRQC risk and Q-day timing. Quantum-panickers think "it's coming really soon and we won't get a warning". Those of us in the "let the chips fall where they may" (LTCFWTM) camp are more optimistic about voluntary uptake. We tend to see Q-day further out. Quantum-moderates and quantum-deniers expect to see steady progress on quantum tech, which will itself create urgency to move to P2MR + PQ sigs. In the optimistic scenario, MOST of the quantum-vulnerable coins shift over to P2MR, leaving say the ~1.7M 'Patoshi' and other early P2PK coins. Bitcoin's price appreciation gives holders increasing incentive to secure their stack. So in a real Q-day and fork fight: Are the LTCFWTM camp standing ready to buy the hypothetically quantum-dumped coins? How big is the price drop going to be? Bitcoin's market has absorbed huge supply shocks before. e.g. Galaxy's 80k BTC whale, German state (Saxony) selling ~50k BTC, Mt. Gox distributions, GBTC coins 'rotating' into IBIT/FBTC etc. I'm a quantum-moderate (15-20 years out from Q-day) and firmly LTCFWTM. This is how I'm thinking about it. Open to what I'm missing.
English
29
0
48
4.3K
후추가루
후추가루@blackpepperpd·
양자시대에 대비하지 못한 비트코인들은 고대유물같은거라고 생각한다. 고로 주운사람이 임자.
TFTC@TFTC21

BIP-361 proposes freezing every bitcoin that doesn't migrate to a quantum-safe address within five years of activation. If you're incapacitated, in prison, or simply unaware of the deadline, your coins aren't stolen. They're frozen by consensus. The justification: 34% of all bitcoin have exposed public keys on-chain. If a quantum computer existed, those coins could be stolen and dumped. The proposal wants to invalidate legacy address types before that happens. The problem: Bitcoin has survived 80%+ drawdowns. The network would recover from a quantum-enabled theft. What it might not recover from is the precedent that consensus rules can freeze coins based on address type. If you can invalidate addresses for quantum protection, governments will point to that precedent to freeze "sanctioned" coins next. Two-thirds of the vulnerable supply comes from address reuse by a small number of large custodians. That's fixable today. No protocol change needed. Exchanges just stop reusing addresses. The Presidio Bitcoin report found that with 25% of block space dedicated to migration, 90% of bitcoin's value could move to quantum-safe addresses in four days. Post-quantum signature schemes already exist. Developer discussion on quantum has gone from 5% to 50% of the mailing list in two years. The work is happening. The right approach is voluntary migration, not protocol-level coercion with a deadline. Bitcoin's core value proposition is that no one can freeze your money. BIP-361 proposes doing exactly that.

한국어
5
3
46
6.5K
Bit Paine ⚡️
Bit Paine ⚡️@BitPaine·
An ECC break is EO 6102 for QC-vulnerable Bitcoin, and the most anti-government bitcoiners on this app support taking absolutely no defensive action to prevent the government from seizing bitcoin. Strange. Wait - did you think the government would let a private company retain possession and unilateral control of a machine that breaks all of modern cryptography? Oh sweet summer child.
English
4
0
18
2.2K
Forrest
Forrest@ForrestHODL·
Bip 361 is a bad idea.
English
9
4
105
1.7K
Dimitri-H 🇧🇪
Dimitri-H 🇧🇪@Dimi_h·
The error in thinking is "only quantum vulnerable addresses are frozen". BIP361 implies ALL current Bitcoin wallets will be frozen until they have upgraded to the quantum resistant format (within established timeframe). A problematic given to all. Especiallfy for ETF's and treasury companies as they MUST move funds towards the new wallets. Meaning high KYC risk and potential problems in regards to (safety) audits of funds. Existing L2's (like lightning) might see problems and shutdowns as the forced upgrade wrecks various wallet interactions. It would be disastrous for the entire ecosystem.
Bit Paine ⚡️@BitPaine

I find it really funny that people are raging against the proposal to freeze quantum vulnerable addresses. You’re tilting at windmills, friend. If a QC materializes then It’s going to happen. You can’t stop it. Basic game theory. The fork without the giant quantum bonanza is the more valuable fork, and it is the one that will be chosen by capital, and therefore miners. Your little node and your 2 $BTC on a Seedsigner are very much irrelevant. $MSTR, $IBIT, $MSBT et al. will signal before any hardfork is activated and all intelligent capital will follow them. 10M+ quantum-vulnerable $BTC will hit the market in a day. And it will be ever so over for you. I’m sorry. You may not like this. But it’s inevitable. Cry about it.

English
2
4
22
651
OrangeStandard
OrangeStandard@orange_std·
@BTC_PIGEON 블록사이즈 워 이후 비트코인프로토콜에 닥침 가장 큰 제안. 양자로 털리는건 내버려 둬야하고 개인이건 국가건 양자로 사토시utxo를 해킹했다면 축하할 일임. 보물섬을 찾은것.
한국어
1
0
4
195
OrangeStandard
OrangeStandard@orange_std·
@bourbonni @lopp @isabelfoxenduke 그 자체가 문제야. 그냥 QC에 의해 털리도록 놔둬야해. 애초에 그건 내꺼가 아니야. 사토시가 진짜로 죽었다면 그건 그냥 보물섬이야.
한국어
0
0
0
15
Nico ₿⚡️丰🧉🇦🇷 🤙💜
Hay mucho ida y vuelta por la propuesta del BIP 361 de @lopp pero atentos que se están salteando algo La clave está acá y el lo explica en este podcast de @isabelfoxenduke en esta sección youtu.be/Q-0wSicRylk?t=… El NO está diciendo "Vamos a quemar monedas de satoshi". Sólo está proponiendo que a partir de un tiempo (eso será tema de debate sin dudas), las transacciones de direcciónes viejas (TODAS), sean invalidadas hasta tanto exista la fase 3 que dejo en la imagen. Eso en principio no requiere arbitrariedad de elegir ciertas transacciones y bloquearlas, deja básicamente un esquema donde todas las monedas podrán ser gastadas eventualmente pero hay que trabajar en esa etapa 3 para definir como sería y poner un timeline. estaría bueno que el foco esté en definir esa fase para que la misma básicamente se implemente en simultaneo con la fase 2
YouTube video
YouTube
Nico ₿⚡️丰🧉🇦🇷 🤙💜 tweet media
Español
15
5
29
4.3K
OrangeStandard
OrangeStandard@orange_std·
@epr510 너는 비트코인을 제대로 이해하고 있지 않다. 아무도 미사용 utxo를 lost코인으로 정의할 수 없다. 양자내성주소로 이동하지 않은것 또한 주인의 자유이며 QC에 노출되는것도 그의 자유이자 책임이다. 그냥 내버려둬야한다. QC로 사토시지갑을 해킹했다? 축하할일이다. 그는 보물섬을 찾은것 뿐이다.
한국어
0
0
0
19
『華』「胡翌霖」
我支持BIP-361,或者说我一向都支持比特币以冻结休眠地址的方式完成后量子升级。而且我认为这个共识其实不难达到,核心的开发者和主流的囤币者普遍支持冻结,很多反对的声音其实是媒体和kol那里发出来的,许多人煞有其事地讨论冻结方案对比特币精神的破坏,但他们也许手里压根就没有比特币。 有一些反对意见其实并不有力。比如最常见的一条:冻结剥夺了你对资产的全权控制和自由支配,违背了“Not your keys, not your coins”的精神。但是,要注意这一升级是为了抵抗量子破解,也就是说,当地址被量子计算机破解后,里面的币也不受你控制了,会被你所不知道的你并未授权的破解者所控制,这才是丧失了对资产的全权控制。要修正这个可能被破解的bug,比特币的升级给了每个人几年时间来自由选择,埋得再深的冷钱包也足够时间调整了,这才是自由支配。 典型的案例就是中本聪遗留下来的大量地址。冻结它们是违背了中本聪自由支配其资产的意愿吗?我认为恰恰相反。设想中本聪已经死了,或者说决心永远隐身,他决定永远不向市场抛售自己的比特币,于是在死前或退隐前销毁了私钥。这明显更接近于中本聪的自由意志。但量子计算机有可能违背中本聪的意愿,重新动用很可能已被中本聪销毁的地址,这是对资产自由支配的否定。中本聪也不是孤立,迈克尔·赛勒也反复表达过死后销毁比特币的意愿,当然如果死亡在预期下发生他会有足够时间把币转进黑洞地址,但如果死亡突然发生,那么他能做到的就是不保留私钥。而如果他的币没有存在抗量子地址,将来就可能会被破解。类似的意愿在无儿无女的比特币hodlers中不少见,更多休眠地址也许和中本聪和赛勒一样,都是自主放弃的结果。所以在量子时代保持它们继续冻结,才是符合“财产自由支配”的道理。 至于说非自愿丢失的币,虽然不是自主放弃的,但是被量子破解了也不会还给最初的丢失者啊。丢币的人希望自己把币找回来,而不是别人拿走这些币。所以冻结方案也没有更加违背他们的自由。 还有一种反对意见叫做滑坡风险,认为如果可以为了抗量子而冻结,那么未来监管机构就可能以同样的逻辑要求冻结“合规性”存疑的资产,这将开启比特币的“审查之门”。而我认为这完全是胡搅蛮缠,根本不存在“同样的逻辑”。比特币的规则是公开、透明、普遍化且不依赖于任何外部信息的,这就是反审查了。冻结可能被破解的地址属于“改bug”的范畴,而不是审查的范畴。 比如说,伊朗人转账比美国人更难,这是审查的问题。而1开头的比特币地址转账,相比bc1p开头的地址要交更多手续费,这不是审查或任何歧视造成的。 当然,我支持诸如Matt Corallo的两步走战略:即避免把抗量子升级和旧地址冻结捆绑在一起,这两步应该独立推进,前者主要是技术问题,后者则主要是共识问题,不能说非得解决共识了才去推进技术更新。我认为共识问题最终就还是要靠一次大分叉竞争来解决。也就是说,虽然我支持BIP-361的策略,但我并不支持尽快就合并该方案,正如方案提出者本人所说的那样,这个方案类似于抛砖引玉,还不是最终的版本。
中文
16
5
48
5.8K
OrangeStandard
OrangeStandard@orange_std·
@ishi0k 지랄말고 포크떠서 나가라 비트코인에서 어떠한 일이 있어도 암호로 신원인증이 되지 않고 타인의 주소를 제약하는 일은 발생해선 안된다. 일몰이고 나발이고 그럴싸한 단어일뿐 피앗적 사고로 비트를 바라보니 겁을 먹는것. QC가 사토시지갑을 뚫고 그 utxo를 손에 넣는다면 축하해야 할 일이다.
한국어
1
0
0
26
ishi
ishi@ishi0k·
BIP361: Post Quantum Migration and Legacy Signature Sunset OJO: BIP361 obligaría incluso a #SatoshiNakamoto a moverse… o perder para siempre sus Bitcoin. ¿Qué es BIP361? Propuesta para migrar Bitcoin a criptografía resistente a computación cuántica y eliminar las firmas actuales (ECDSA/Schnorr). Autores: Jameson Lopp y otros desarrolladores relevantes del ecosistema. ¿Qué propone? Forzar la migración de todos los usuarios a nuevas direcciones “post-cuánticas”. Plan: #Fase1: Se prohíbe enviar BTC a direcciones antiguas vulnerables. #Fase2: Se invalidan firmas antiguas → fondos no migrados no se pueden gastar. #Fase3 (opcional): posibles mecanismos de recuperación (no definidos). Punto clave: No es opcional. Si no migras, pierdes acceso a tus BTC. ¿Por qué existe? Riesgo futuro: computadoras cuánticas podrían romper la criptografía actual de Bitcoin. Beneficios: - Seguridad a largo plazo - Eliminación de tecnología vulnerable - Fuerza la actualización de la red Riesgos: - Pérdida de fondos para usuarios que no migren - Impacto fuerte en holders antiguos (cold wallets, claves perdidas) - Posible división de la red (hard fork) - Debate filosófico: ¿coerción vs soberanía? Impacto: Usuarios nuevos: + Más seguridad - Mayor complejidad Usuarios antiguos: - Alto riesgo si no migran + Seguridad si migran Institucionales: + Reducción de riesgo Comunidad: División total entre necesidad técnica vs principios de Bitcoin BIP361 busca proteger Bitcoin del futuro (ataques cuánticos), pero lo hace forzando cambios que pueden afectar su esencia y causar pérdidas. En una frase: Salvar Bitcoin del futuro… a costa de romper parte de su pasado.
ishi tweet media
Español
4
7
19
1K
Adrianna Mendez
Adrianna Mendez@adriannamendez_·
@dotkrueger Nah I don’t want North Korea mining satoshis coins. A migration was always going to be needed and they aren’t freezing individual wallets. This is bitcoin governance at its best
English
9
1
55
7.6K
Fred Krueger
Fred Krueger@dotkrueger·
Satoshi's coins should not be frozen. Let them be quantum mined. The network will adjust. Proof of work.
English
307
120
2.2K
126.4K
OrangeStandard
OrangeStandard@orange_std·
@Gemini Sit tight Quantum attacks are nothing but an illusion. If Satoshi’s wallet ever gets compromised, congratulate the one who cracked it. For they have found Treasure Island.
English
0
0
0
51
Gemini
Gemini@Gemini·
JUST IN: Bitcoin developers propose BIP-361, a soft fork to freeze wallets vulnerable to quantum attacks
Gemini tweet mediaGemini tweet media
English
90
80
447
31.4K
Bit Paine ⚡️
Bit Paine ⚡️@BitPaine·
The cleanest way to “freeze” quantum-insecure coins is just to sunset *all P2PK UTXOs at a defined block height.* Give Satoshi and anyone else, say, 3-5 years to move them. If they haven’t moved to quantum resilient addresses by then, they are assumed to have been lost or forfeited by their owners. Nothing wrong with sunsetting old network components that present vulnerabilities. This gets rid of the “confiscation” language. It’s a technical bug fix/security upgrade.
English
191
16
370
48.9K
きむきむ🇺🇸
きむきむ🇺🇸@kimkiminvestor·
ビットコイン投資家の皆さん。 全投資のうち何%がBTCですか? 僕は現在30%ほどですが、もう少し増やしたいと思ってます。 まさか投資の100%がBTCで占めてるなんて頭のおかしい人はいないよね?
日本語
265
2
277
40.5K
비트보부상 ₿₿S
비트보부상 ₿₿S@BTCbobusang·
BIP-361 지지 안하는 이유가 잘 설명되어 있네요
Bitcoin Well@bitcoinwell

BIP-361 wants to freeze Satoshi's coins to protect against quantum computers. This might be the most dangerous idea in Bitcoin's history. And the threat it's solving isn't even real. Shor's algorithm theoretically breaks elliptic curve cryptography. Theoretically. The machines that could actually do this don't exist. We need millions of stable, error-corrected qubits. Today's best hardware has thousands and isn't close. We're decades away. Maybe more. But even if quantum computers eventually cracked old P2PK addresses, so what? Coins re-entering circulation isn't a crisis. It's a Gold Rush. People race to recover forgotten wallets. Supply hits the market. Prices adjust. Holders who care migrate to quantum-resistant addresses. The market absorbs it. That's not a bug. That's Bitcoin working exactly as designed. "But Satoshi's coins..." What about them? Satoshi never gave anyone authority over those coins. Not Jameson Lopp. Not the developers. Not the community. The whole point of Bitcoin is that nobody freezes your coins. Nobody. Not even with good intentions. Here's the precedent that should terrify you: once you establish that coins can be frozen for their own protection, you've introduced permissioned holding into a permissionless system. The Bitcoin that can freeze lost coins to protect us from hypothetical quantum threats is the same Bitcoin that can freeze your coins to protect us from hypothetical criminals. The logic is identical. The door, once opened, doesn't close. Solve quantum resistance the Bitcoin way. Better address standards, user education, voluntary migration. That's how every legitimate upgrade happens. Bitcoin's immutability isn't a bug to patch when it gets inconvenient. It's the whole product.

한국어
5
0
44
2.4K
Ash Crypto
Ash Crypto@AshCrypto·
BREAKING: Bitcoin developers have proposed BIP-361 to freeze early Bitcoin addresses that have quantum vulnerabilities. This includes Satoshi wallets and other OG dormant wallets from the 2010-11 era. It's a big step, as these wallets hold over 4M BTC and are at high risk from future quantum computing attacks.
Ash Crypto tweet mediaAsh Crypto tweet mediaAsh Crypto tweet media
English
475
416
2.6K
381.7K
OrangeStandard
OrangeStandard@orange_std·
@BTCbobusang 논리적 근거와 데이터는 대지 못하니 승질과 궤변으로만 토론하는 그들
한국어
0
0
1
49