Nostr Web Client

Replying to

ODELL

saylor seems to be advocating for a hard fork that forces people to move coin.

burning those who do not comply.

this breaks the fundamental social contract and value prop of bitcoin: sovereign ownership and property rights.

it must be opposed. strongly.

https://blossom.primal.net/09bdeb018313b0eeeca3d178fb0b183bd4fb75bb29df30bb7d0dfe79d12402ed.mp4

McSats 2w ago 💬 2

I don’t hate Saylor’s take here: give people a year or two to move their coins into quantum-safe wallets (which everyone who still has access to their keys will do…unless they are retarded).

If coins aren’t moved, it’s most likely because the owner is either dead or has already lost their keys (meaning those coins wouldn’t be movable anyway). Freezing them just ensures they can’t be stolen, which seems reasonable to me.

Silver lining is that we’d finally get a clearer picture of how many coins are truly lost. And the asset becomes even more scarce.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ODELL 2w ago 💬 2

> unless they are retarded

all proposed quantum resistant signature schemes have tradeoffs, mainly they are much less efficient and have untested security guarantees

McSats 2w ago

That’s valid, I didn’t know that

(Disclaimer: I am also retarded)

Marcelinho 2w ago 💬 2

they have untested security guarantees at the moment.

I think we will see post quantum security in the future … my concern is more about the freezing part

McSats 2w ago 💬 1

Even if you give ample time for owners to move corn?

Marcelinho 2w ago

yes

ODELL 2w ago 💬 3

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

i support that

McSats 2w ago 💬 1

And then basically if you don’t opt in then you risk getting your corn stolen?

This still allows for coins from lost wallets and dead people to be stolen. We are cool with this?

ODELL 2w ago 💬 5

> 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?

Marcelinho 2w ago

The US gov cannot steal what already belongs to them 🤭

xenonsky 2w ago

burn, steal, we

nope I hate that.

McSats 2w ago 💬 1

> should we burn saylors coin because the us gov might steal it?

Fuck that’s a good point. I would argue that it’s different because Saylor is alive/hasn’t lost his keys, so this doesn’t seem like apples to apples to me but your point is taken- if we start freezing coins….where does it end?

Marcelinho 2w ago 💬 1

saylor never had his keys … maybe a coinbase password

McSats 2w ago 💬 1

You don’t think Saylor could transfer his coins to another custodian? I say high probability he has his keys Holmes

Marcelinho 2w ago 💬 1

idk and idc

McSats 2w ago

I also kind of hate that if a ton of corn was dumped on the market, this would allow the BlackRocks of the world to scoop up a much larger percentage of the network

inpc 2w ago 💬 1

“should we burn saylors coin because the us gov might steal it? “

Would be quite funny…

McSats 2w ago

lol rug pull Uncle Sam, that would be hilarious

McSats 2w ago 💬 1

Look I’m not gonna complain about an opportunity to buy a massive dip, I’m just thinking this one out!

Marcelinho 2w ago

yes I'm fine with that .. for me satoshis coins are part of bitcoins security

Marcelinho 2w ago

jgbtc 2w ago

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