Damus

Recent Notes

waxwing · 2w
Glad to see a large number of people expressing themselves over the suggestion of freezing coins. It will not work; a Bitcoin in which that happens is basically worthless. I mean that both functional...
DerOptimist profile picture
I think one could simply concentrate one’s energy on working on quantum‑resistant addresses instead of freezing other people’s coins. I don’t understand why there are people who are so keen on freezing other people’s coins. What are they after? Is it to prevent those coins, which might be stolen by this magical quantum computer, from being sold and causing the fiat price to crash? So are they only interested in fiat when it comes to Bitcoin?
❤️1
Notions · 15w
It would make no sense to not self custody. Maybe this is the way to get everyone to self custody. 😞
Matt Corallo · 19w
You’re confusing a core principle of bitcoin for the way the core principle was written down. It’s (obviously) a core principle of Bitcoin that coins never be frozen or stolen by any action aside ...
DerOptimist profile picture
Freezing other people’s bitcoins is wrong, no matter what the motivation. In my view there is only one way to preserve Bitcoin’s censorship‑resistance without violating that principle:

Introduce quantum‑resistant addresses - By adding a new address format that is provably secure against any foreseeable quantum attack, users who consider quantum computers a real threat can voluntarily move their funds to those addresses. The choice remains entirely in the hands of the coin holder. If a holder decides not to migrate —whether because they have lost the private‑key, because they distrust the new format, or for any other personal reason — then they accept the associated risk. The potential loss is a direct consequence of their own decision, not of an imposed freeze.

Should quantum computing enable the reactivation of old Bitcoin addresses, their influx may cause a crash in the price, but the price can recover. A temporary price-correction is not a reason to compromise the protocol’s core guarantees.

Preserving Bitcoin’s immutable, permission‑less nature must remain the highest priority.
❤️1🤙1
Matt Corallo · 19w
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 w...
DerOptimist profile picture
I'm shocked by what I'm reading. If you freeze or burn Bitcoin UTXOs that you merely presume to be lost, you fundamentally undermine Bitcoin's core promise of censorship resistance. This causes irreparable damage.

And why? Out of fear the price might crash? Prices can recover, Bitcoin's credibility cannot.

Lost bitcoins are like treasure in a sunken ship, currently unreachable to everyone. The development of quantum computers will change this situation. Whoever is then able to crack the old private keys may lawfully recover the treasure. comparable to a finder who, after centuries, raises a wreck. In order for fair conditions to prevail and for each owner to have the same chance to secure his property, the timely introduction of quantum‑resistant addresses is essential.
1❤️5👍1
Matt Corallo · 19w
You’re confusing a core principle of bitcoin for the way the core principle was written down. It’s (obviously) a core principle of Bitcoin that coins never be frozen or stolen by any action aside from a mistake by their owners. However, that’s not the question we face if a CRQC becomes reality...
jgbtc · 19w
This is 100% correct.