Why ?
What is wrong in quantum encryption upgrade ? I mean ..is there a technical challenge here or we just don't wanna accept the quantum threat ?
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
Discussion
first of all the term upgrade is a psyop, it is a hard fork
second of all, all proposed quantum resistant signature schemes have tradeoffs, mainly they are much less efficient and have untested security guarantees
Of course.. the signature schemes will be tested and evaluated ..and I am sure Bitcoin network has the best experts ..
But how is it a fork ? Can't they just upgrade core and knots or what have you ?
Btw . ..I am glad cuz now community move over from Core vs Knots debate and get into "Saylor's Quantum fork" debate 😜😜😜
it would be a new signature scheme.
so everyone would have to move their UTXOs to a new address.
i think its possible to do it as a soft fork (right?)
the way he is talking about it suggests it would be a hard fork and any coins that dont move are burned.
Like segwit ! Or when they adopt schnor signature ?
it is a hard fork because the result would be two chains: the existing chain and one with frozen coin
Got it ..because Bitcoin security is NOT a bandaid type anti virus .. it is built into signature scheme .. like the network itself is a Security software 😎😎
You're conflating chain splits with backwards compatibility.
its not backwards compatible for those who do not move to the new signature scheme
Backwards compatibility with regard to forks is taken from the perspective of a node operator rather than a transactor, but yes. Perhaps a new term is necessary.
> a new term is necessary
yes
Wait what? .. new term . ???
Like semiSoftHardFORK 😭😭😭
ah so that is the third software client software for bitcoin you're going for? hmm
all Saylor does is Saylor business
I am out.
How about connecting a working LN-address, which will enable sovereigns to zap you freedom money?
can i come up with it? I’ll do my best.
thanks
that's helpful
U-P-G-R-A-Y-E-D-D
The simple question from a layman is : what happens to Satoshi's coins ?
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.
The promise of the network was : put your money in ..and get it back after 100 s years .. no one said you need to upgrade every couple years .
be honest
you just want to steal Satoshis coins with your quantum computer
nah but fr
one curious side effect of a hard capped money supply,
is that the early adopters want to slam the doors behind them and burn as many coins as possible.
Who promised you that?
No one has the authority or ability to make such guarantees.
You must be kidding .. if the network can't even protect its creators' asset ..what do you even mean by security !
kinda fuzzy on the technicals but yeah,
in addition to P2PKH or P2WPHK we also get Pay to Quantum Resistant Hash or something
#chatGPT : Because SegWit was a soft fork, the network continued to recognize P2PK and P2PKH (Legacy) addresses as valid. If Satoshi woke up today, their private keys would work exactly as they did in 2009.