areplyguy

@JoSuzzy9 The most important topic to discuss is what is the most lightweight, efficient post-quantum protocol that we can transition to. Everything else is just noise.

@JoSuzzy9 BIP-361 is a soft fork which means that because nodes and miners don’t have to update to the freezing coins mechanism it won’t actually protect Satoshi’s coins from being stolen. It’s a feel good movement like the knots vs core spam argument.

The freezing of specific coins for ANY purpose, even QUANTUM, sets an awful precedent. The only justification for this is believing Bitcoin would otherwise cease to function, which is nonsense. If your sole motive is protecting the short-term price of your bags, how can you call yourself a Bitcoiner?

@shidan @MDBitcoin You don’t seem to understand the difference between miners and nodes.

Actually, the misunderstanding is on your end. The "decentralization" of the mining network is a myth. Currently, ~40% of the total network hashrate is controlled by fewer than 50 organizations, and the beneficial ownership of those organizations narrows down to about two dozen entities. At the rate of miner consolidation since 2020, this concentration will likely be a lot higher than 51% this year. This trend only increases with the difficulty.

"Where are the servers of Bitcoin located?” - Prof Jiang That single question from Jiang shows the misunderstanding immediately. Bitcoin does not run on one company’s servers, Bitcoin runs on a distributed network of nodes spread across the world, which is exactly why it is hard to censor, shut down, or control, plus the mining system on top of it to protect it with energy. When someone frames Bitcoin like a centralized system, they are not critiquing Bitcoin as it is. They are critiquing a version of Bitcoin that exists only in their own confusion.

@w_s_bitcoin Bitcoin is a free-market, trustless network. It doesn’t care who you are, even if you’re the creator. Gives a new meaning to ‘not your keys, not your coins’ Users must take responsibility for the security of their money.

Bitcoin’s promise has always been that no coin can be frozen, even a stolen one.

@alpacasw @w_s_bitcoin You need to read the definition of a soft fork

@w_s_bitcoin Not true, lots of coins are technically frozen due to soft forks.

@ddums81 @dotkrueger I appreciate the healthy debate. Obviously I don’t want the coins to get stolen but the network can’t be your protector. People must take responsibility for the security of their assets. This is especially true for a trustless network.

@coolreplyguy @dotkrueger That is a valid point

Satoshi's coins should not be frozen. Let them be quantum mined. The network will adjust. Proof of work.

@ddums81 @dotkrueger Should we re-write consensus for all the people who had their seed phrases stolen? People must be responsible for their own money. If Satoshi cared about his stash he would have given it to someone else. The network can’t change everytime theft occurs.

Another question, if Satoshi were alive would he move his coins to quantum secure addresses once available? I think yes since he literally wrote that at some point they will need to be quantum upgraded. So if he doesn’t move them by whatever date is set we would assume he is dead and hasn’t left them to heirs. Then ask yourself if you were in this situation would you rather have your coins be stolen by the NSA or be frozen through consensus? I know that is a hypothetical but a legit question to ask yourself. I would prefer frozen but maybe you would literally want them in the hands of the NSA in this example. If you say let them take them then we are just going to disagree but I respect your opinion. Not many would choose that though just realize that.

@ddums81 @dotkrueger If miners don’t like the price they can leave. Bitcoin is a free market network, the difficulty adjustment will still operate the same as always. Smart people would take notice that all the vulnerable coins are gone and buy the discounted price. Free market always wins.

@coolreplyguy @dotkrueger So a 90% drop in price is good for the network? I think the miners might disagree. Again, you might be right that it will overcome the negative shock I’m just saying it will be a big negative shock and whoever has that power has some power.

@ddums81 @dotkrueger Bitcoin has dropped over 90%+ in the past and recovered. Nothing about the network would fundamentally change in any way. The vulnerable coins would get improved security. Not only would Bitcoin be fine, the network would get stronger.

It doesn’t give you absolute power you are correct but it gives you the power to significantly tank short to medium term price. Might not be existential, but actually could be. That is power. Do you have the power to decide to tank the price from $75k to sub $20k on a whim? I don’t

@kucoincat @w_s_bitcoin The point I’m making is people lose their coins to theft all the time and we don’t write BIPs for that. We’re not Ethereum.

@coolreplyguy @w_s_bitcoin Well breaking and entering/larceny in many places/circumstances is a felony. Should be also charge the people stealing funds the same way?

Maybe Satoshi left those coins as a quantum bounty…maybe not. Either way, messing with them over a temporary NgD concern seems pretty gay.

@TFTC21 The ironic part is that BIP-361 won’t even stop the coins from being stolen. Old nodes and miners can still relay them. This is equivalent to the knots vs core debate on spam.

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.

@ddums81 @dotkrueger Didn’t shift anything. Owning any % of the bitcoin doesn’t give you power over the network.

@coolreplyguy @dotkrueger New guy here, think you just shifted the argument without answering the question. Does massive price power give you any power was what we are arguing.

@kucoincat @bitcoinwell We need to be patient. By the time a real and practical QC is invented we’ll have hundreds of BIPs to debate over

@bitcoinwell I understand the threat is not as close as people make it seem but are there other BIPs that are attempting to create post quantum addresses?

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.

@ddums81 @dotkrueger Are you new here? Do you not realize bitcoin price drops significantly relative to other assets and yet the network is still alive and well? If a QC was able to mine Satoshi’s coins they would be likely sent to a QC-proof address creating a more robust network

Having the ability to absolutely tank the price doesn’t give you any power???? Why don’t you ask your ai what would happen to price if all of Satoshi’s coins were sold all at once at market. Report back with what that would do to price and then tell me that ability to affect price is not power in the hands of someone who might want to harm BTC.

@adriannamendez_ @dotkrueger 100%. Quantum computers will make Bitcoin network stronger

@dotkrueger So when someone’s wallet is hacked from quantum— you think bitcoin is still viable?

@ddums81 @dotkrueger Owning any % of the coins doesn’t give you power over the network. Worst case you sell and drop the price.

You’re going to let the first quantum winner control the network? Yes, they do have massive control at that point. You’re a math guy tell me what happens to price if they decide to market sell all the coins? Saying “they won’t because of game theory” doesn’t work, because they can if they want and that is massive power to have tha choice. Why give that kind of massive power to any random person/company? What if it’s the US government and they want to try and cripple Bitcoin.

@kucoincat @notgrubles I also think QC is way overhyped and nobody has an accurate estimate when we’ll ever see a practical QC that can break modern encryption.

@kucoincat @notgrubles Of course. I don’t see any hard fork being successful and I don’t see any soft fork having the ability to stop QC for vulnerable addresses. Best course is to just give people options and if coins are stolen then due to neglect so be it. Bitcoin lives on in the end

Can you really describe yourself as a cypherpunk if you are proposing to freeze someone's coins?