Opt-in PQC makes sense today when the threat is remote.
If the threat becomes imminent then opt-in only becomes far less useful.
who decides whether a quantum threat is “imminent?”
why should anyone trust an “altruistic” actor to destroy someone’s property rights before a quantum computer does?
how do you know coins are lost or if someone has chosen not to move to quantum resistant addresses?
I’m sorry but I’m not falling for this bullshit where the network gives away its rights under the guise of an altruistic actor.
It sets a dangerous precedent. In the future, what “attacks” will be deemed serious enough to again infringe on property rights?
bitcoin’s fundamental value comes from the fact that the network cannot under any circumstance freeze your funds. If I choose not to go to quantum resistant addresses, and a quantum computer cracks my keys, that’s on me and it was my choice.
This all stinks of bullshit from someone that wants to infringe on property rights.
why should anyone trust an “altruistic” actor to destroy someone’s property rights before a quantum computer does?
how do you know coins are lost or if someone has chosen not to move to quantum resistant addresses?
I’m sorry but I’m not falling for this bullshit where the network gives away its rights under the guise of an altruistic actor.
It sets a dangerous precedent. In the future, what “attacks” will be deemed serious enough to again infringe on property rights?
bitcoin’s fundamental value comes from the fact that the network cannot under any circumstance freeze your funds. If I choose not to go to quantum resistant addresses, and a quantum computer cracks my keys, that’s on me and it was my choice.
This all stinks of bullshit from someone that wants to infringe on property rights.
1
