Damus
Matt Corallo profile picture
Matt Corallo
@matt
While we cannot make this decision on behalf of a theoretical future Bitcoin community, I think burning vulnerable bitcoin is inevitable.

First of all, I think it’s the right decision. In a world where a CRQC (cryptographically relevant quantum computer) is on the short-term horizon, these coins will not remain with their original owners. No amount of hopium will solve that. Instead your options are only (a) freeze or (b) let some CRQC owner eventually steal them. I definitely prefer (a).

Luckily, it doesn’t have to be a lot of coins - any addresses which were created from a standard seed phrase + HD derivation can be recovered with a QC-safe ZK proof. It’s only the very very old coins (or more esoteric wallets) that would be frozen.

Finally, it’s worth pointing out that I think this is inevitable. In a theoretical future where a CRQC is on the horizon, both forks will exist. The market will ultimately decide which bitcoin they value more - one with an extra million coins of supply as the CRQC owners steal lost coins or the one without. I cannot imagine the market preferring the former.

1055❤️13🤔2🤙2👍1🫨1
Corey San Diego · 8w
Question and idea: QC doesnt put bitcoins historical blockchain at risk right? So if someone creates an OTS proof they own the coins now (I.e. OTS stamping the hash of a signed txn that is never broadcasted), could there be a pathway for spending vulnerable coins post QC if they can produce an OTS ...
BroccoliRiceTofu · 8w
🙌🫡 GM
Toby McMann · 8w
This debate is great, because you get to see in plain day who believes in the core principles of decentralization and self sovereignty.
stonehands · 8w
If the fork without the change survives, the logical conclusion is still that all coins end up in non legacy addresses. Then both markets are the same essentially? What then? I don't see how there's an extra amount of supply. Satoshi's stack is not extra, it's included in 21 million.
FREEDOM · 8w
Hard money is about rules surviving reality, not vibes surviving hypotheticals. If the threat becomes real, Bitcoin will adapt.
Kayne · 8w
Sounds like you're trying to turn Bitcoin in a CBDC for the IMF
VanHodl · 8w
I will sell the freeze fork to buy some satoshi coins from the CRQC owner though
cheesypleb · 8w
Quantum is not on the near term horizon. Not even close. It's decades probably centuries off and in my view more than likely will never be a threat. It's highly theoretical at best and has achieve no actually useful results so far.
Zsubmariner · 8w
Except it's not because a cryptographically relevant quantum computer is physically impossible. But since you're cool with burning for fictional QC, I assume you are cool with burning spam? I assume you support The Cat?
thoughtcrimeboss · 8w
If we burn these coins, once people know that their btc can be seized in an emergency, bitcoin loses one it's most valuable properties. This will be even worse than an attacker owning all the lost coins. A sell off from a theft is temporary, destroying the value prop of Bitcoin by burning coins is ...
Louferlou · 8w
Or maybe the market will chose the bitcoin version where devs advocating for stealing coins from others is not a thing, who knows... It's typical leftist mindset what you are doing sorry Let's steal from others to protect people from themselves...And by doing so you completely fake the market, the ...
nostrich · 8w
Did you talk to the owners of those vulnerable coins? No? So leave them the fuck alone. I rather have the worst person on earth steal them than some elitist pre-crime cabal nullify Bitcoins property rights.
El presidente Eloy Musketti · 8w
Does QPC increase the TX size? And if will this impact the troughput in tps?
Joel Walbert · 8w
QC is a marketing scam, just like AI. I'll have to find the report again, but all the publicly released 'benchmark' data to back the claims are fraudulent.