i think that the fact it allows users to define new transaction types and have them adopted by miners by minting transactions they cannot verify for spends to get them to upgrade is a great idea. but ...
So in your view is BIP360 the nail in the coffin here? I will refute the need to make Bitcoin quantum resistant as the physics that underpins centralized quantum computation is fiat and has not resolved the double spend (measurement) problem of energy/information. A quantized block of time at Planck scale is required to solve the double spend, thus enforce conservation, which pushes Superposition to the sub-Planck interval between the discrete measurement boundaries. The whole logic of CQC is fiat and our desire to change Bitcoin from claims of CQC is peak fiat. BIP360 is not an upgrade to Bitcoin, it is an attack.
Can you elaborate on why we need schnorr UTXOs and sha256d hash shield? I believe future threat will come from AI and classical computation; quantum is the myth for us to hand over the keys to the castle, because we’re too retarded to understand and we must trust the fiat physics.
Can you elaborate on why we need schnorr UTXOs and sha256d hash shield? I believe future threat will come from AI and classical computation; quantum is the myth for us to hand over the keys to the castle, because we’re too retarded to understand and we must trust the fiat physics.
1🤙1