Mr.DeepBlue

Makes sense if we are talking about an independent actor, but nation states may have very different objectives. For a nation state that holds no Bitcoins, the goal may not be to make money, but to massively damage another adversary state that holds large amounts of Bitcoin, either directly or through its population.

🧵 THE QUANTUM GAME THEORY OF BITCOIN Why the profit-maximizing quantum attacker saves Bitcoin, and gets paid the most for doing it. Quick napkin. The Setup. Let: S = 6.9M BTC with exposed public keys (Google, March 2026) P₀ = BTC price pre-attack H = attacker's pre-accumulated holdings in quantum-safe wallets Total supply cap = 21M BTC (minus unmined) actor gains quantum capability to break ECDSA. Three strategies available. Only one is Nash-optimal. You crack S and dump on the market. You're selling into your own crash. Liquidity evaporates. If S = 6.9M BTC and daily volume is ~30K BTC, you'd need 230 days of total market volume. Price hits zero before you exit 0.1% of your position. Payoff_A ≈ S × P_collapse → 0 This is the strategy everyone fears. Is also the worst one. Strategy B: Keep the stolen coins. You crack S, move to your own wallet, hold. Problem: You're now the most hunted entity on earth. Every intelligence agency, every exchange, every node operator is watching your addresses. Permanent sell overhang suppresses price. Market prices in the risk you dump at any time. Payoff_B = S × P₀ × (1 - overhang_discount), but you can never spend it without revealing yourself. Payoff_B is large on paper, zero in practice. Strategy C: The real print Stage 1 Accumulation. Quietly buy H bitcoin over months into BIP-360 quantum-resistant addresses. No signal to market. Cost basis = H × P₀. Stage 2 Positioning. Load deep OTM puts across Deribit, CME. Short MSTR, COIN, BITO. Total premium outlay = C (small, these are far OTM). Stage 3 Execution. Crack every vulnerable address. Send ALL coins to a provable burn address. Not your wallet. Burned. Verifiably, permanently gone. Stage 4 Crash capture. Market panics. BTC drops x%. Put payoff = f(x) where f is convex in the decline. Deep OTM puts go from pennies to multiples of face value. Payoff_puts = C × leverage_multiple × (P₀ - P_crash) Stage 5 Supply shock. Before burn: your share of supply = H / 21M After burn: your share of supply = H / (21M - S) If S = 6.9M: H / 14.1M vs H / 21M = 1.49x multiplier on your ownership share. You just increased your effective BTC position by 49% without buying a single additional sat. Stage 6 Transparency. Go public. Announce what you did and prove it. Why? Because silence creates uncertainty. Will the attacker dump? suppresses recovery. Proof of burn removes the overhang instantly. Transparency is a commitment device it makes the recovery credible. This isn't the moral choice. It's the greedy one. Every day of uncertainty you eliminate accelerates the recovery that your long position profits from. Stage 7 Recovery capture. Network hard forks to quantum-resistant signatures (BIP-360 is already on testnet). Existential risk resolved. Satoshi overhang gone forever. Post-recovery price P₁ > P₀ because: Supply permanently reduced by S/21M = 33% Existential risk eliminated Network provably survived its worst-case scenario Your stack H is now worth: H × P₁ where P₁ reflects the new scarcity Total Payoff Comparison. Strategy A (sell): Π_A ≈ 0 (can't exit) Strategy B (keep): Π_B = S × P₀ × discount (large on paper, inaccessible, permanent target) Strategy C (burn): Π_C = Puts profit + H × (P₁ - P₀) + H × P₁ × (S / (21M - S)) The third term is the supply compression premium. It's pure upside that only exists in Strategy C The Deeper Insight. The attackers incentives are perfectly aligned with Bitcoin's survival. They want: The network to upgrade (protects their remaining stack) The price to recover (that's where the real money is) Confidence to return (drives P₁ above P₀) This is a mechanism design result: Bitcoin's transparency and fixed supply turn the attacker into its greatest advocate.

@actofage28 @duonine Because we’re talking about huge industrial scale machines that will cost billions to build and most likely only a few nation states and maybe some ultra large tech companies will have.

@duonine 🤣 how do you know what hackers have in their bedroom bro?

The problem is that hackers don't have quantum computers sitting in their bedrooms. If this turns into a problem, you'll find it onchain first, not a PR from Google.

@seth_fin These people are ignorants. They have no respect for life. They think they are cool, but actually they are just ignorant.

What do you think of his behavior? Streamer Clavicular is banned and arrested for killing an alligator for fun on stream.

@Eric_BIGfund Sorry but that does not make much sense. Why would they pay in BTC? They may save in BTC, but payments will most likely be done in stablecoins on fast chains.

Agentic AI will take over the global economy. Bitcoin is how the agents will pay each other.

Who says the network can‘t? Right now it can do so very well. You’re implying that at some point in the very distant future it can not do that anymore. How do you know that? You don’t, you just claim it will be like that. Is there a risk that at some point in the very distant future the network my not be able to sustain itself with fees? Yes there is. Are there multiple reasons neither you nor I am currently able to imagine that this will not be the case and the network will be able to sustain itself either through fees or other ways? Of course there are. Saying Bitcoin is not a good store of value because at some very distant point in the future the network may not be able to sustain itself is like saying Gold is not a good store of value because at some distant point in the future Space X may have robots that will mine vast amounts of gold on some asteroids and therefore drive the gold price down.

@MrDeepBlue2 @Whoop1478 @const_reborn Your money isnt a store of value if the network can't sustain itself with fees.

It’s REALLY important to remember that Tao is also nothing without BTC. The whole industry in-fact is dead without BTC. They solve different problems and i hope will help each other. I’ll die on that hill.

No it's not old tech. It's exactly the tech that is required for what it is and that's all it is. Saying it is old tech misses the point entirely, implying that it should be something that it is not. It's the most decentralised crypto currency with by far the longest track record and that is exactly what is required for people to use it as a store of value with billions flowing into it. Do you think trillions of dollars of "old world money" will rather flow into the most proven most decentralised and most censorship resistent network which is Bitcoin or into the one which has the most fancy tech and features? There is obviously a market share for fancy tech and features, but when it comes to storing value on the scale of trillions of dollars there is only one way to go for that money in the crypto world.

@Whoop1478 @const_reborn Exactly. Btc is old tech. Also the base layer isnt being used enough to keep its long term security

@Whoop1478 @const_reborn But it did not launch last month! It launched 17 years ago and in this case first mover advantage does not fade over time.

@const_reborn If $BTC just launched last month would you be saying this? Would you be so impressed with this new Bitcoin that all of crypto depended on it? Would you be saying $TAO is NOTHING without $BTC if bitcoin was a month old? First mover advantage fades over time

RT @const_reborn: Surely the idea of universal human rights has been shattered by now. The behavior of our governments and the people pulli…

Yes in a few weeks you will get a better picture. However from experience it will take some time for things to actually cool down price wise. I assume we will see a reduction in transaction volume first and with some people willing to sell a bit lower than what was the market 2 weeks ago. This first wave will be bought up by dip initially, however afterwards I expect further decline in prices. How much and how long is hard to say and also very much depends on how the Iran conflict actually turns out. The market here was running hot for a long time already, so a correction was overdue anyway and this surely was the trigger now for a slowdown.

@MrDeepBlue2 Agreed, there is certainly a lag! Usually MOUs are signed for 45 days with transfers happening within 2-3 weeks for cash transactions. We are keeping our eyes peeled for 14-21 March 👀

🚨Dubai market showing cracks.. or? 1BR in FIA, Townsquare just closed at 51.7% higher per sqft than the last sale. 30 days ago. Same building Feb 5: AED 825,888 | 999 sqft | AED 826/sqft Mar 7: AED 785,000 | 626 sqft | AED 1,254/sqft 📈 We scanned: ⚖️ 33,000 transactions 📷Updated in Real Time Link below 👇

@arvoco From signing the sales contract till the actual transfer it will take anything from 3-8 weeks depending if it’s a cash buy or a mortgaged buy. So all transactions that are happening now and also for the next 2-4 weeks were all sealed before the Iran war happened!

Transactions Dashboard: transactions.arvo.co

@AidanSimardone „Geopolitical Analyst“ 😂 You are a clown who literally has no clue what he is talking about here!

Facing attacks from Iran, the UAE is screwed

@BritishHodl I agree, but I think Europe is too brainwashed to understand this.

We need an alliance between USA 🤝 Europe 🤝 Russia This is the only way the West has a chance to survive.

There is not much reason for concern. People outside hear that there are rockets and drones flying towards Dubai and are freaking out, but when you are here on the ground, nothing really happens or changes. Malls are open, restaurants are open, weather is wonderful, life continues quite normally. The UAE has extremely good air defence, so for normal people, the only risk is that a pice of an intercepted rocket falls on your head. Given how many millions of square meters there are where it can lend, the chance of something hitting you is so small that it does not make any sense to worry about it. As long as you are not sitting on some military base or some oil refinery, the actual risk for normal people is extremely close to zero. So from my side, I'm not concerned at all, based on how things are right now. Can things change in the future? Yes of course, but I think it's not likely and chances are high that the worst attacks on Dubai are already over by now.

@MCFvalidator @andyweng_ All I’m saying is that is it’s odd to see zero concern, even if it feels fine rn.

I get that people REALLY love Dubai, but it is slightly odd that nearly everyone is saying “it’s fine, no big deal. here’s a picture of my lunch and water”. We know Dubai is safe, but bro, at least admit that it feels slightly uncomfy being so close to Iran with missiles flying around lol Like I love Thailand, but if China started firing missiles here, I would not be telling everyone how much I love it.

He is not wrong, given that his last sentence in the original post was "I wonder why they left" For the people who are protected it actually does not matter if the UAE government protects them out of self interest or altruistic reasons. What matters is that they are protected!!! And that's the point people don't understand! When you are living in the UAE, you know that the government will do whatever it can to protect you because you are IMPORTANT to them. All the wealth they have is only because of the people living there! If the people go home, the UAE will lose it's wealth. On the contrary, the UK government does not need to care about it's people, because they are living there anyway and have nowhere else to go. This is the point people do not understand. Dubai is a great place to be, because the government will do whatever it can, to keep you happy and keep you living there, because it is in THEIR interest that you are living there. That's the best situation anyone can hope for that the government has a huge interest that the people living there are happy which is almost non existent anywhere else.

@TJiMTS @eliaz19988 Hahahaha - the context doesn’t matter. The reasons don’t matter. The situations don’t matter. All that matters is that I make a point about the UK government that is nonsensical. For a start why would we evacuate them in planes when there are missiles in the sky moron?!

UAE: 5bn spent in 2 days on defending non citizens who don’t pay income taxes UK: we can’t rescue our citizens from a war zone because it would be expensive and they don’t pay income taxes I wonder why they left 🤔

Well there is hardly anyone living in Monaco. Population is like 39k, so obviously there is neither much positive nor negative talk about it. I believe the hate is coming from certain fractions that don't like the fact that Dubai is successfull for different reason. Yes, the tax free and the glamour draws in some grifters and other shitty people as well, but that's not the majority. Dubai is a unique city and an amazing place to be with a lot of amazing people and it works by following principles which go against certain ideologies that are held by various people in the West and goes directly against their believe system. The law and order situation probably being the most prominent aspect. Dubai is an extremely safe place and literally everyone who is living here supports that and is happy that things are the way they are, with many people coming from unsafe places who are extremely happy that they can bring up their children in a safe and secure environment. But many people in the West, especially on the left prefer to be soft on crime and many other aspects that go along with that, claiming that the reasons for crime are much more complicated etc. So what they hate to see is that being tough on crime actually leads to a massively safe environment in which normal people live happy and peacefully and respectfully. And there are many other aspects like government efficiency, a government actually caring about the wellbeing of it's residents, pushing of innovation and many more. Dubai is challenging many believes held by certain people in the West, which in my opinion is the main reason why there are such strong negative emotions towards it succeeding. (I'm not addressing the op with this, just speaking generally).

@MrDeepBlue2 @duonine I guess the hate is generated by crypto bros actions, by grifters getting paid per post to boost the image of a place which is not really how they presenting. Why there is no hate for Monaco?

Crypto bros can't afford Monaco like this guy driving a $50M Ferrari. So they moved to Dubai to live in the desert. Europe is a no-brainer if you're actually rich.

Yes, it's hot in summer, but that's 4 month. Then you have 1 month transition period and 7 month of absolutely great weather. And in Dubai, almost every day in that great weather period is nice, because there is almost no rain and lots of sun. In Dubai you have easily 180 days per year, which by any normal standard are "wonderful weather". Which country in central or northern Europe has that? None. I come from central Europe and even in the "good season" there are many days where it is cold, rainy, cloudy and ugly. And from November to February it is cold and when you are not in the mountains, the weather is often absolutely shit, with lots of rain, fog, clouds and so on. Saying it is stupid to live in Dubai because it is hot in summer is equally as stupid as saying one can not live in Europe because it is cold there in winter. The reality is that the weather in Dubai is far better than most people believe. In fact, summer in Dubai is like the inversion of Europe in winter. In Europe in winter you live in heated houses and in Dubai summer you live in air conditioned houses. But for the other 7 month of the year, weather in Dubai is much nicer than the weather in Europe and that's a fact

@MrDeepBlue2 @duonine It's ridiculously hot during summer there. What do you do - sit indoors with AC on full blast for like 8 months in a row or what?

@duonine Europe is great from May to September and Dubai is great from October to May. So when you are actually rich, move your wealth to Dubai where it's safe and spend summer in Europe and winter in Dubai.

I normally like your content, but I don't know where the hate for Dubai is coming from. It's an amazing city and a great place to live. Most people who write negative about Dubai have never actually been there or lived there for an extended period of time. You post good crypto content, so maybe it's better to focus on that, rather than bitching about people who decided to move to Dubai for whatever reason. "Europe is a no-brainer if you're actually rich." - Moving your wealth to Dubai and then spending a couple of month in summer in Europe is the actual no-brainer.

The main reason why I believe concerns about quantum computing are overblown is that quantum technology does not follow anything resembling Moore’s Law. In fact, its development trajectory is much closer to that of fusion reactors, which have famously been “twenty years away” for several decades. The underlying issue is that many physicists believe large-scale quantum computers with millions of physical qubits may never be built, because the system complexity grows exponentially. While conventional computer chips have benefited from steady, predictable scaling, quantum computers have not. There is a real possibility that simple quantum devices will remain relatively easy to build, medium-scale systems will already be extremely difficult, and truly large-scale machines may turn out to be practically impossible. I am not claiming that this outcome is certain. However, given the current state of technology, we are still many orders of magnitude away from quantum computers that could realistically threaten Bitcoin. At this stage, it is far from clear whether such machines will ever exist at all. That said, it clearly makes sense to prepare for potential breakthroughs and to continue researching ways to make Bitcoin quantum-resistant. This is a prudent and responsible approach, especially given Bitcoin’s long time horizon. At the same time, based on everything we currently know, it seems extremely unlikely that quantum computing will pose any serious threat to Bitcoin even 10 years from now. A more rational response is therefore to monitor progress closely, continue defensive research, and adjust if the technological trajectory changes — rather than treating quantum computing as an imminent existential risk.

The Quantum Debate Around Bitcoin Isn’t FUD. It’s a Timing Problem Admittedly, I didn’t take the quantum threat very seriously at first. I probably should have then, and I certainly am now. Not because I think Bitcoin is anywhere near the verge of collapse, but because the conversation has moved past hand-waving and into something that deserves more attention. As with most things in crypto, the topic splits opinion. Some dismiss it as pure FUD, others frame it as an existential threat. The truth is that it's somewhere in-between. The risk always felt real, just far enough out to worry about later. That could still be true, but markets don’t really wait for certainty. At a high level, the concern is straightforward: Quantum computers can solve certain mathematical problems that classical computers can’t. As they advance, they could undermine the cryptography securing Bitcoin by deriving private keys from public ones. The real question isn’t whether this is possible in theory, but how close we are in practice and whether we’re preparing early enough to avoid a last-minute scramble. One rebuttal that comes up a lot is that if Bitcoin’s encryption were ever cracked, it would mean all encryption is broken (banking, defense, the internet itself), so Bitcoin wouldn’t really be a special case. That sounds reasonable, but overlooks that Bitcoin relies on elliptic curve cryptography, which is more vulnerable to quantum attacks than the RSA schemes still widely used in traditional banking and government infrastructure. In other words, Bitcoin sits closer to the front of the line. Banks and state systems also have centralized control and are already migrating parts of their infrastructure toward post-quantum standards. Bitcoin doesn’t have that luxury. It’s a decentralised network with millions of participants, no central authority, and long coordination timelines, which makes early preparation more important, not less. It’s also important to put it into context. Bitcoin is no longer a fringe experiment. Corporations, financial institutions, asset managers and governments hold billions worth of BTC. The idea that all of these stakeholders would simply sit back and let Bitcoin go to zero ignores basic incentives. That doesn’t mean we should be complacent. I’m saying there will be a response, and it’s likely to be more coordinated than catastrophic. This is where BIP-360 comes in. It aims to introduce quantum-resistant address schemes to Bitcoin. Progress has been deliberate, and some would say slow. There’s debate over timelines and urgency, and that caution isn’t irrational. Bitcoin’s security culture is built around avoiding rushed changes. Still, there’s risk in waiting too long. Upgrading Bitcoin isn’t like pushing a software patch. There’s consensus, testing, wallet migrations, hardware support, and time. If quantum capabilities advance faster than expected (and I suspect they might) even the perception of delay could matter. I’m less convinced, though, that this process must inevitably take years once urgency sets in. Bitcoin core developers aren’t abstract entities. They’re holders, builders, and long-term participants with just as much at stake as anyone else. So where does that leave us? Optimistic, with caveats. Quantum computing doesn’t spell the end of Bitcoin. But it does present a challenge that needs to be addressed deliberately and early, not hastily and late. We don’t have to panic, but we do need to think ahead.

@ErikVoorhees flawed perspective. In reality, many "weak" individuals experience concernabout immigrants because they perceive competition on various fronts. Given that a lot of "weak" individuals are present in every society, your statement exhibits ignorance and arrogance on multiple levels.

@ErikVoorhees education or upbringing as the "strong" members of society. They may also lack the financial acumen that the "strong" possess, among other attributes. To claim that everyone who is not deemed "strong" is in that situation solely due to their own choices is, in my view, a deeply

Weak men are scared of immigrants