> This still allows for coins from lost wallets and dead people to be stolen. We are cool with this? yes, the alternative is to effectively preemptively steal their bitcoin which is strictly worse should we burn saylors coin because the us gov might steal it?

yes, the alternative is to effectively preemptively steal their bitcoin which is strictly worse should we burn saylors coin because the us gov might steal it?

It was obvious that sailor will come up with some shit like this

Have fun re-encrypting your bitcoins!

Don't worry Matt, it's all soft forkable!

I don't think if you said to him "Hey, we can create new quantum resistant address types on the existing chain through a soft fork" he would be opposed to that. I think he would prefer that. But I believe his point still stands, everyone would have to move their coins to the new addresses. The old addresses would be drained. I don't think it is possible to just upgrade without moving your coins to a different address, either on the same chain or a different one. Am I wrong here?

You're conflating chain splits with backwards compatibility.

How is it stealing? More like finding lost treasure.

Core exists at this point only to turn Bitcoin into a Politburo that can be captured by the Courtier There's zero excuse for there to still be a "default" repo in Bitcoin that undiscerning people turn to on account of its legacy The only Pro-Bitcoiner move the Core repo can make is to archive itself and force the uninitiated to actively choose a distribution #ArchiveCore

That’s some Craig wright shit

we roll out a quantum resistant signature scheme that is opt in, tested in the wild over time, and no coin is frozen

If something like my migration BIP activates then either Satoshi upgrades the locking scripts for their coins or they get frozen. While my research suggests it should be possible to enable a recovery option for BIP32 wallets, there's no additional data available that JBOK wallets would be able to use to prove to the network that they aren't a quantum attacker.

This is the fear that someone will somehow obtain control of Satoshi era 'lost' coins. This isn't about any specific person losing control of their UTxOs to a quantum attack. Initially we'll have a soft fork for a new type of address that is somehow quantum resistant. I don't think that is too contraversial although I won't be in a rush to move my UTxOs. You'll then have a hard fork pushed that nullifies UTxOs on all legacy addresses. This is the real threat. Banning addresses of a certain type. This is a form of censorship pushed under the guise of 'for your own safety'. Once we go down that path of banning addresses, we set a very dangerous precedent. Bitcoin would be no longer censorship resistant & decentralised. We then have 2 Bitcoins, 1 captured & 1 free. The real question is which one would people value? The captured Bitcoin that doesn't have all valid UTxOs available or the free Bitcoin that potentially has Satoshi's coins being spent. I think the ultimate decider will be whether those coins move. While those coins stay dormant, the uncensored Bitcoin will be the winner. As soon as those coins move, the need for a hard fork can be easily justified. Pre-emptively hard forking to ban addresses should be fought with everything we have. Bitcoin is about individuals asserting their sovereignty. Nobody can force you to run their code.

Thinking about this some more. Matt, let's assume your proposed solution gets implemented, and new quantum resistant addresses are created through a soft fork. It's tested in the wild over time and no coins are frozen. It's voluntary. Some people move, some don't, and some coins are dead and can't move. Then quantum hits. Someone with a quantum computer start grabbing all the remaining coins, including Satoshi's. They then move those coins over to the quantum resistant addresses. Is that the best option? Giving the quantum guys all that corn? Plus it could be a government. I don't have an answer to this question, but having some sort of cutoff date before quantum hits doesn't seem completely crazy given the alternative. I will admit however that coming to consensus on a cutoff date would seem nearly impossible.

Freezing is stealing. Getting them via quantum is more like finding buried treasure (and also only hypotheticaly possible).

Who promised you that? No one has the authority or ability to make such guarantees.

i still think there is a difference between free markets and capitalism. The two are conflated too often. They are not the same. All isms have religious worship at their core. Those who value free, unregulated trade act differently than those who worship the accumulation of capital.

The network has no knowledge of which assets may being to its creator.

Any network. No human knows other than Satoshi, and no machine knows.

> lot of testing work that happens on Core It can be done on another repo that doesn't usurp the legacy, but would also need less testing if it didn't churn as much as a frivolous app... Bitcoin's value is derived from it being stable and resistant to change. > compartmentalize Indeed, it'd be better if Bitcoin was looked at as distributions moreso than implementations. Libbitcoin is an effort to make it libraries, HORNET, and at least one other I scrolled by recently... also BTCD is a great example of a stable alt-implementation that powers a ton of nodes, but as a library, via LND. > Knots Unfortunately controlled opposition that's making a clown show of otherwise justified Core resentment > avoid chain splits A default distribution in Core is actually a bigger risk, most updates are downloaded blind. This presents a risk of widely distributing a bad version that splits with older versions. With more diversified distributions, the impact of a bad update/alt would be small... more frequent issues with individual, less severe as they'd be irrelevant to the broader network... like a controlled burn.

Are they at Jacob Rothschild's mansion or what?

You're the liar. I said nothing of the sort. And no, softforks _don't_ cause chain splits.

> "Hard fork" and "soft fork" are well-defined technical terms if freezing bitcoin is a soft fork then it’s a meaningless distinction 🤷‍♂️

> You have censorship resistance, and it is in MY interest, to burn whatever sitting duck coins out there to reduce the supply this sentence is in conflict with itself

lmfao nice has nothing to do with it if you want to fork to steal satoshis bitcoin, good luck will not comply

You are too sweet to stop and explain all this to me. This is a massive thread I do not have bandwith to dive into rn to understand all the nuances and perspectives. But help me understand... Is @Gigi agreeing with what Adam is saying or is he being sarcastic? Also, I feel like your response is lightly colored by a layer of core vs knots team stance. Remind me where Adam stands and where you stand? It will help me distinguish the various positions. Seems like Addspam would have to be core, so then you are knots? And sounds like he's correcting the fudders in their terminology and he may not be on the team of quantum as an immediate near future threat Nor is Gigi and you? Did I get that right? 😅

Thanks for sharing. It makes me sad that there is so much loss of respect in this field. One thing my Bulgarian brain has been always very slow at is getting American's sarcasm.

No, you're wrong. You're acting as if miners have a choice. They don't. They must make blocks that the network accepts, or they're not miners anymore. If they make invalid blocks, *they* are splitting the chain - not the softfork. Furthermore, their invalid blocks don't constitute a real chain: every time the valid chain gets ahead, all the old nodes will drop the invalid blocks and those miners will start over, with huge losses. The only way they can avoid this, is with a counter-fork.

You're the one lying

About time Saylor shows bis real intension.

I think there basically be soft-fork with dual signature types the Quantum addresses and the regular addresses for a long time. And slowly people will slowly give economic preference to the new Quantum addresses. And that's it. To the point that people on older addresses start losing economic opportunity. Nobody is forced to do anything. There will be a new alternative/upgrade, people will choose it or not. It's really not that of a big deal. And it'a all voluntaryist.

You don't need to lock them up, the market will do that economically and voluntarily.

I guess I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. And it could be he is not up to speed. Maybe you will get a chance to interview him again and can press him on it. ;-)

> a new term is necessary yes

So we all have to take a haircut to do the moral thing. That is always fun ;-)