Ibrahim

In life you need one skill, it's wisdom. Everything follows...

@SimonDixonTwitt Every nation brain washing their people, what is even real these times...

Operation Ajax 2.0

@stephanlivera People don't realize the owners of quantum computer would rather be a goverment institution Us or china which have a btc strategic reserve or ibm/google/Microsoft which will not dump the coins if they can use it on there balance sheet, don't panic over nothing

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.

@Jafarlemagicien @gainzy222 You don't even know who will own quantum it's either a government entity, or the big players google, ibm. You think they are not incentivezed to control your life? And if they get the coins the will not dump it, we are not talking about a 20 old hacker

@ibrahimQDS @gainzy222 It doesn't introduce anything, it's exactly like a softwork and it would be a decentralized decision taken by majority of minors, it's completely different than what you present as "censorship". Understand the words before using them.

This is gonna be pretty funny Poor people will correctly vote “no” to freezing wallets And rich people will be forced to offload all of their bitcoin in response, nuking the entire industry in a firesale There is no way to avoid this

@ctoLarsson You are making non logical assumptions, you think someone with quantum like the us government or google, china will dump the coins? You don't even understand quantum or bitcoin

BIP-361 to freeze quantum vulnerable wallets: Yes. The alternative is price dipping to near 0. That would be bad for Bitcoin’s reputation. If not freezing: - Say you know that half a million BTC will be market dumped tomorrow. - What will you do today? You will sell today, to re-buy tomorrow at a fraction of the price. - So will everyone else. - Will anyone buy today? No. - So there is little or no floor. - Price will wick down to “impossible” levels. - Then repeat it again a few days later, for a total of 2 million btc. - Oh price will hit near zero. The argument to not freeze, is to completely f over Wall Street, Saylor, treasuries, and everyone else and start again from basically zero.

@attackofthecyb1 @blockchainchick Nobody said anything about frozen bitcoin, the main risks is introducing censorship and manipulation which kills btc foundations. Nobody cares about the lost coins, if somebody found a lost treasure then they can have it

@ibrahimQDS @blockchainchick Their bitcoin is NOT being frozen. The wallet is being frozen. They are being given many years to move their bitcoin to a new wallet.

Should Satoshis Bitcoin stack be frozen?

@Jafarlemagicien @gainzy222 You are assuming it's going the zero and die, this is not how decisions are made. It's introducing censorship and manipulation doors. Understand the social engineering aspect before anything you agree on with btc

@ibrahimQDS @gainzy222 If you don't do it, Bitcoin will go to zero and will die, there's 30% of the supply at risk. It's not hypothesis, it will die. There's some time for people to move the funds, it's not censorship, there's no way around it for btc.

@o_lalonde @Cointelegraph You probably don't understand how social engineering works, otherwise you would have said something differently

@ibrahimQDS @Cointelegraph It doesn't open any door that's not already opened. Satoshi did it in the past. site.financialmodelingprep.com/market-news/th…

🚨 LATEST: Cypherpunk Jameson Lopp and co-authors propose BIP-361 to freeze quantum-vulnerable Bitcoin, including Satoshi's $74B stash, before quantum computers can steal them.

@BitPaine So becoming like politicians is the solution twisting language to pass the same solution with the same consequences, so when this is accepted they can start freeze any address they label as vulnerable to the network or unethical.

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.

@Jafarlemagicien @gainzy222 You realize they can't hack all addresses only the old exposed one, and solutions are coming So you prefer, manipulation and censorship, why the hell are you even in btc then?

@ibrahimQDS @gainzy222 Yeah temporary to zero for a time called forever because no one would buy an hacked bitcoin

@CryptoKaleo If they start with the old wallets, then they have opened a door to freeze anyone's wallet in the future. This should never happen, what if quantum hacks old wallets who cares, there will be a temporary drop in price.

Up to ~6.8 million #Bitcoin currently sit in quantum vulnerable wallets. That's ~$500B worth of risk for $BTC the market has priced in. It's one of the major reasons people cite for the recent dip and underperformance BTC has had vs. other commodities. What happens if that risk goes away? If BIP-361 (or something similar down the road) passes, rather than worrying about a massive liquidation cascade, the total supply of Bitcoin would effectively be reduced by a large %. What's currently priced in as a massive risk factor - would all of a sudden become a massive supply reduction. BTC becomes verifiably more scarce, and is protected from extractors and bad actors. When you look at the incentive factor alone, I think this outcome is much more likely than people are currently giving it credit for. It'll obviously be hotly debated - but I think there's good evidential support this is what Satoshi would have wanted. And as hope and momentum replace fear and doubt, the price of Bitcoin will reflect it. You're still early. Be more bullish.

@BitPaine If they start with the old wallets, then they have opened a door to freeze anyone's wallet in the future. This should never happen, what if quantum hacks old wallets who cares, there will be a temporary drop in price.

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.

@riverflow666 @SalsaTekila The worst option is introducing control based on specific metrics,certain old or quantum nonresistant wallets. This open a door for centralization and control which blows the fundamentals of btc,stealing coins that nobody own anymore doesn't, it like a lost treasure in the ocean

@ibrahimQDS @SalsaTekila Both options are bad

Unpopular opinion: This is going to happen and most holders silently want this to happen. Assuming it’s done with a fair grace period, it seems right. People talking about the ‘original ethos’ are talking out of their sidelined arses or virtue signaling.

@BTCsessions If they start with the old wallets, then they have opened a door to freeze anyone's wallet in the future. This should never happen, what if quantum hacks old wallets who cares, there will be a temporary drop in price.

Hard no on BIP361 for me.

@BitcoinNewsCom If they start with the old wallets, then they have opened a door to freeze anyone's wallet in the future. This should never happen, what if quantum hacks old wallets who cares, there will be a temporary drop in price.

BITCOIN COMMUNITY PUSHES BACK AGAINST PROPOSAL TO FREEZE SATOSHI’S COINS Bitcoin developers have proposed BIP 361 to freeze early wallets with potential quantum vulnerabilities, including Satoshi-era addresses from 2010–11. These wallets hold over 4M BTC and are seen as long-term risk targets if quantum computing advances. The proposal has sparked major pushback. Critics argue forcing migration at the consensus layer is too heavy-handed, breaking from Bitcoin’s tradition of voluntary upgrades driven by wallet defaults and incentives. They also note the quantum threat remains theoretical, with attack economics unlikely to target most users. Opponents warn that setting deadlines and invalidating legacy signatures could introduce unnecessary disruption and a dangerous precedent for protocol-level fund restrictions.

@EvanWritesOnX Can you explain the reason why these TPS puppets are moving away from the US TIC infra like Microsoft, France, Germany and Austria? If they work for the TPS they wouldn't rather be more dependent on the TIC?

Europe planning to open the Strait, just means America’s private sector is working through them. Not Europe themselves. Macron, Starmer, Sanchez. They are all US private sector agents. And the US private sector has dislodged from the state of America, and is actively isolating it. Every deal made year-to-date, has left the US away from the negotiation table.

@urwamir08 @HadiAtaei1 @abierkhatib No that's wrong, please check your facts

@ibrahimQDS @HadiAtaei1 @abierkhatib exactly, but mainly Masjid Al-Aqsa is one with grey dome.

Look who entered Al-Aqsa Mosque first once it reopened after 40 days 😂