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
Agreed. Must be stopped at all costs!
Between him and Luke it’s becoming painfully clear who the real enemies of bitcoin are today.
Absolutely right. Sovereign ownership and property rights are the core of Bitcoin, and any forced fork that violates them is unacceptable. It must be opposed strongly.
saylor is just another guy with a suite … as a wise man once said "be humble and stack sats"
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 ?
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.
Sitting on thrones but can sort out the mic?!
I wonder if Satoshi is still alive, what he thinks of all this tomfoolery. 🚬🥃
As far as my (limited ) knowledge..Bitcoin is way less resistant to quantum threat than normal web cuz Bitcoin network adopted 64 characters key ..or something .. is that right ?
i think that's a bad idea to advocate for such an upgrade, and this sounds like a government agenda
That's the Core position, Loops bip has overwhelming support and dissent is banned or shadow edited
Looks like another core vs plebs fight brewing.
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
I agree 100%. As long as the reference client is being actively developed it's an attack vector. The last few months proved this beyond all doubt.
This is what happens when your money becomes digital. There will always be demand to upgrade the money. More intense discussions will continue to happen over the next few decades. There will always be demand to upgrade. Blackrock will want a certain upgrade. Cantor will want another upgrade process. State Street will want a specific upgrade. It will never end.
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.
> unless they are retarded
all proposed quantum resistant signature schemes have tradeoffs, mainly they are much less efficient and have untested security guarantees
That’s valid, I didn’t know that
(Disclaimer: I am also retarded)
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
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
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?
> 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?
The US gov cannot steal what already belongs to them 🤭
burn, steal, we
nope I hate that.
> 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?
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
Look I’m not gonna complain about an opportunity to buy a massive dip, I’m just thinking this one out!
yes I'm fine with that .. for me satoshis coins are part of bitcoins security
Freezing is stealing. Getting them via quantum is more like finding buried treasure (and also only hypotheticaly possible).
ok pessimist
Wish to see the same level of commitment fighting the idiotic idea of your boys blowing up a filter and putting all the community of node runners against it.
that's because his company depends on the price of Bitcoin going up and staying up. Anything that could temporarily drive the price of Bitcoin down could be a threat to his business. HUGE conflict of interest. He should've stayed humble
So what is your solution?
Instead of complaining and bitching, come up with a better solution. 🤷🏻♂️
we roll out a quantum resistant signature scheme that is opt in, tested in the wild over time, and no coin is frozen
So you are ok when some startup steals 1M BTC from Satoshi?
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?
Forced migration might not be a solution but neither is doing nothing.
we roll out a quantum resistant signature scheme that is opt in, tested in the wild over time, and no coin is frozen
why cant you just hard fork with new quantum resistant signature scheme for everyone, no migration necessary, and not freeze any coin?
bäähhh
What's the best quantum safe approach to Proof of Reserves? Trying to integrate PoR into our corporate treasury
Am I an employee of Strategy now, or Bitcoin, Inc, or what? When can I expect a paycheck nostr:nprofile1qqs2xs05tluhtr6hpgsmqqxp04898gayjlyrjlexcrndv8j6el784xqpp3mhxue69uhkyunz9e5k7qg4waehxw309ajkgetw9ehx7um5wghxcctwvs0vd8n5? The reason employees upgrade when they're told to is because they're on the payroll.
strongly oppose. quantum addresses should be included in a softfork, i.e. backward compatible
no forced upgrades, ever.
the duude seems to have forgotten that he’s not an authority in the Coinland because there are no authorities in the Coinland. lol.
nostr:note1yu8qh0l4cq9gg9fpk4jclp6q0mepuyacq8ha5ljnx76ang52t9pq2npf36
That's because... https://video.nostr.build/1adcf084043aed9558cb6a4b9fe1470c672424b9c99aa0cc2891d002dd8a6520.mp4
...it's true
It was obvious that sailor will come up with some shit like this
Saylor is slowly taking out his mask
Yes, Dollar Mike is at it again. He drops all the keywords that he loves so much (the US government, Microsoft, Apple, Google, JP Morgan). As if Bitcoiners are just going to follow the example set by those... And the comparison to the boss and the IT guy updating the software is incredibly bad.
When Saylor is talking about this kind of stuff, Katy Perry coin, Ethereum vs. Solana, etc., I get the feeling that thankfully he is overdoing all this nonsense so badly that people understand what he is about.
💯
Have fun re-encrypting your bitcoins! 
yea that too lmfao
Fuk saylor and his digital capital, fiat bullshit. We're not here to coexist we're taking their whole system out
My god. Back has either gone senile, joined the villain side, or has a gun pointed at him or his family. I don't see a 4th possibility.
This
I don't understand what this means 😭
Elliptic curve (EC) cryptography isn't as simple as RSA (large-prime based, signing and encrypting uses the same algorithm). The "signing" and "encrypting" algorithms are different in ECC, so to say "quantum will break Bitcoin's encryption" isn't exactly accurate, because Bitcoin only uses the signing-algorithm. Addspam Back is playing with words, the technical equivalent of correcting the conjugation of your verbs. He is saying the proper "concern" is when bitcoin's EC signing algorithm (ECDSA) is broken by quantum.
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 nostr:nprofile1qqsxu35yyt0mwjjh8pcz4zprhxegz69t4wr9t74vk6zne58wzh0waycpt3mhxue69uhhqun00pujumn0wd68yttjv4kxz7fwv9c8qte4vscxgvecv9nxxdpevv6xywp5vdsnqerp8y6nzcfnxvmxzenxvycnsdpn8pjkvetyxvcryct9v4jxvcfexfjkywrzxpjrxenrvgurwqgkwaehxw309amk7apwv3jhyemfva5jucm0d5hszxrhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejx2un8d9nkjtnrdakj7h0jgy8 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? 😅
I'm neither on core or knots team. I'm on the no-spam team, whatever if there is one. I won't be upgrading core to v30. I think Gigi is making a joke of Adam's sarcasm. In any case, I've lost respect for most OG bitcoiners after core became captured and I had to bear witness to their bootlicking the github credential owners.
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.
WRT quantum, I choose to ignore it until they have a post-quantum algorithm that has survived a decade of scrutiny.
Don't worry Matt, it's all soft forkable!
if you freeze coin that does not move to a new signature scheme it will result in a chain split
calling it a soft fork seems disingenuous
The likelihood of chain split decreases commensurate to the percentage of hashrate enforcing the soft fork.
hey nostr:npub150q6tnk63wrt0jmy6ht27k8u0pa6gq8jjy4eq7tf6f6507t9ghgqnnen2h
we were right
if no hash keeps building on the chain that doesn't see the quantum signatures,
wheres the split?
"calling it as soft fork seems disengenuous"
You can do better than this
"Hard fork" and "soft fork" are well-defined technical terms. Either can cause a chain split
This was explained thousands of times to the RDTS/Knotsi crowd in recent months, on Twitter and in their Telegram group chat. But they were told by Liar nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcltxu3w that "hard" and "soft" mean "split" and "no split"
If you want to talk about controversy, and consensus, and chain splits, please do
You're the liar. I said nothing of the sort. And no, softforks _don't_ cause chain splits.
SegWit (2017) → soft fork → no chain split
Taproot (2021) → soft fork → no chain split
temporary divergence leads to orphaned blocks but not a split
this time though, we're proposing a fork that makes those who don't update and those who do update *disagree on the chain state*
this was carefully avoided previously.
this time it would be intentional and cause a split.
not clear what Luke's point is 🤔
nostr:nprofile1qqsftzm4fgwnmed4ajs0uvwj642lg5fjt7zf32pa5xvhkl7dtsu73rqpzemhxue69uhks6tnwshxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qg6waehxw309aek2mnyd96zumn0wdnxcctjv5hxxmmd9uq3vamnwvaz7tmwdaehgun9d35hgetn9ehhyee0t94wjk, A soft fork with minority hashrate will chain split
I'll be precise:
Let's imagine 40% activate nostr:nprofile1qqsw3p5pela795rxxff34kgfafsaawhnkqp8ehmgm2my49dgx9fjclcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujucm0wfc82mfwvdhk6tcuxu0h5's soft fork in 2026. The remaining 60% just keep doing nothing, i.e. they keep running their existing Core and Knots nodes, like Core 0.21 or Core 30 or Knots 29. Let's call the 60% the "Taproot" hashrate
Also, observe that many current blocks are incompatible with the RDTS rules, for example having OP_RETURNs greater than 83 bytes
The 60% running taproot will get a block roughly every 17 minutes, while the RDTS will find a block roughly every 25 minutes
The first hour or so could be interesting, and maybe Taproot miners will find a couple of blocks that satisfy the RDTS rules. But that won't last long, the Taproot chain will soon include blocks that are rejected by the RDTS hashrate
The chain will split, where the majority hash rate will ignore the RDTS chain because it doesn't have enough Proof of Work, and the RDTS will ignore the Taproot chain because it has RDTS-incompatible blocks
So basically, nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp00qjrgs was wrong at least three times in this one paragraph X post:
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.
"A miner's job is to produce blocks the market wants to buy"
From Gemini
Dathon Ohm's soft fork will, if they are crazy enough to activate, cause a chain split
The only way they can avoid a split is if they get more than 50% of hashrate
But - in my opinion - they won't get 51% of hashrate and therefore we'll have a textbook example of a chain split caused by a softfork. It will be a good opportunity for you to learn how bitcoin works
There is no debate on this, and therefore I will not waste time with you on this thread again. This is Nostr, not X or Telegram, and I expect higher standards
You are a disgrace, lying to the plebs like this
You're the one lying
> "Hard fork" and "soft fork" are well-defined technical terms
if freezing bitcoin is a soft fork then it’s a meaningless distinction 🤷♂️
Yes, it's a technical distinction, not an ethical one.
I didn't say anything about being for or against freezing coins
Contention around this broader quantum topic may cause chain splits, depending on various factors.
Contentious forks, hard or soft, can cause chain splits depending on the distribution of hash rate and other factors
Soft fork is soft fork. The fact that you have some emotion associated with it doesn't change that.
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?
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
that is not what saylor is advocating
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. ;-)
I was on board with what he said as well and thought what you thought too. I don't think he's advocating for something bad, but rather "well... move it or it'll get stolen by someone" , and like myself and many others that what people are thinking should happen, however, what Odell said (the potential solution of changing the signature scheme), if possible (and i hope there are educational material about this so you, others, myself, and Saylor get educated on, then obviously people would do that), then most people who were thinking that we should move coins would obviously just think that we should just change the signature scheme.
Right now, I'd imagine, most people think we have to move coins otherwise it'll be stolen when the quantum stuff happens, but if there are people start educating others about the alternative solution of changing the signature scheme and it being actually a viable option, then most would advocate for that solution instead. All that's missing is people informing/educating others about it and how it works, and at that point myself and others and most likely Saylor as well would advocate for this other solution instead.
I wish you were that concerned with the CSAM upgrade that was shipped by a handful of guys two months ago, despite the enormous opposition of the broad community. Unfortunately, as it is always with you OG influensooors, it’s only the obvious attacks that needs to be addressed, not the sneaky and smart ones. 😩
That’s some Craig wright shit
This BS narrative about coin forfeiture- is a false directive and does little if anything but confuse people of the nature and ethos of Bitcoin and sound money… it is theft disguised as policy -
and the very thing that Bitcoin is designed to mitigate.
This isnt Government money - it’s Bitcoin - There is no expiration date, or requirement that has to be fulfilled
In other words I will do whatever the F I want with my Bitcoin including never touching it - for whatever the f reason I choose including to demonstrate
It took 15 years for the suits to catch up…. Bitcoin is for everyone- and also to all those muddying the waters and making it seem like Bitcoin is just like ETH or any other centralized 💩 coin…GFY
If ‘they’ start freezing coins with forks- Bitcoin is dead.
Thanks for coming to my GFY talk
#Bitcoin
I didn’t know Michael Saylor codes.
Worse than that, look at that interior design. 🤮
Crazy how he speaks on it like it’s already decided. Burn your own coins Mike! Leave everyone else’s alone.
Not surprised. What are the chances Satoshi already planned for this event?
I say let him try to fork. Good luck forming any kind of consensus on when exactly to freeze coins ahead of a threat that will necessarily not have actually yet materialized (or it will have been too late).
If such a worldwide consensus did manage to form, I would die on the minority chain. I just don't see it as particularly plausible.
Creating debt to buy Bitcoin is also not very "proof of work". He has been doing that from the beginning.
His prediction of hardforking seems like a semantically naive take, but we shall see. At some point MSTR will be forced to side with or influence their custodians—Coinbase, Fidelity, etc.
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.
if bitcoin is stolen then so be it
the alternative is to preemptively steal people’s bitcoin which is strictly worse
should we burn saylors coin because the us gov might steal it?
I generally like Saylor, but I get real uneasy when he takes philosophical positions I don’t agree with, especially because so many people seem to follow his lead without a second thought.
Even scrolling through the comments, there are a few too many who don’t appear to have fully thought through the implications of freezing coins.
Fear is a powerful drug.
There are a few too many people earlier this year that didn't think through the implications of storing up to 100kb of data in Bitcoin blocks
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.
🤣
I get the importance of quantum resistance. But it's unclear to me how he would go about enforcing an upgrade. How do you lock those coins? A fork does seem to be the only way to do it. And if it does fork, don't you then have coins on both chains? What am I missing?
How do you unlock them? How could they "upgrade" if something took away their ability to sign transactions? That hardly seems better than just losing them and having them put back onto the market.
I'm done listening to his stupid analogies. Sounds like pure AI slop
but you'll miss out on all the cybering!
He's not advocating for anything he got presented a scenario and he presented a maybe solution. Nowhere here He advocated for upgrade for code change for anything.
And I hate sailor I think he's the government, but in this video he's not advocating for no upgrade bro.
Isn't it implied though when he says the coins get burned?
Is your position to soft fork bringing in quantum resistance addresses and let old legacy, taproot or exposed PK be raided out and out?
Or are you open to limiting the spend rate or another alternative?
Saylor pitching number-go-up so hard, that every question is answered with the basis of maximum number-go-up.
Quantum risk?
-confiscate coins because that’s what will make the number go up the most.
Everything is good for bitcoin but not everything makes number-go-up.
The same basis logic could be done with communism (minimize wealth): hard fork and distribute top 99% wallets into 8 billion wallets. Would also require some very very large blocks and is the most stupid hard fork of all time.
Why is it our responsibility to freeze or safeguard other's coins?
People steal money all the time.
Protect your own wealth without freezing others.
Extremely bad optics
Why is he sitting in a satanic lair? 😆
Lot of people pissed about Saylor. At the end of the day he is acting in self interest.
How many of you, have built multi-million dollar companies over a long time horizon?
That makes a change from his previous position of ossification.
Saylor isn’t the savior he is made out to be
Always said he wasn't the Bitcoin guy everyone thought. He took a gamble, hit on it and doubled down hard to make his next fortune to squander away. He is not to be trusted. Not for freedom for all just his own financial freedom.
"Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked” - quote Warren Buffet
Ref. nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5hgfg9w's poll:
“what’s more likely?
1) satoshi’s coin is stolen by a quantum attacker
2) saylor’s coin is stolen by the us gov”
——————————————
Mass withdrawals from Coinbase-IOU’s, into self custody freedom money, would in effect be a bank run on Coinbase to “discover who's been swimming naked.”
Bank runs can happen quickly on issuers of Bitcoin-IOU’s from custodians like FTX, Mt. Gox, Coinbase, Celsius, BlockFi etc.
Ask yourself.
What would happen if the following categories started mass withdrawals for Coinbase-IOU’s on Sunday evening?
• plebs
• nostr:nprofile1qqs2xs05tluhtr6hpgsmqqxp04898gayjlyrjlexcrndv8j6el784xqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqy28wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytn00p68ytnyv4mqqew05m
• freedom fighters
• “Strategy” AKA $MSTR
• every other major BTC “Treasury” Company
•11/12 US Spot Bitcoin ETFs, except Fidelity / $FBTC, which, according to them self, practices self custody.
What would happen with the BTC-price denominated in filthy fiat currencies, after the Coinbase bank run?
But remember what nostr:nprofile1qqsg86qcm7lve6jkkr64z4mt8lfe57jsu8vpty6r2qpk37sgtnxevjcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqyvhwumn8ghj7urewfsk66ty9enxjct5dfskvtnrdaksd7saa2 have tried to teach you in 21+ Bitcoin-podcast interviews:
“You can’t measure the system, from within the system”
——————————————
“Not your keys not your coins”🔑
nostr:nevent1qqsfueud6yyty05ppc7k6sk6xqx668g6cfnn4lcxw2m2v3zy6dk5ryqqu7ghh
nostr:nevent1qqsyqkcn8f39dqrvjz6z60747q5t9d7jts3uleh498j9cqaukyar65gpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqfjwx3g
Let’s face it. If quantum proofing is going to work, then addresses that don’t move are going to be vulnerable. If you give everybody 2 years to move coins to quantum proof addresses, and some don’t move, you have to figure those people lost their keys, are dead, or not interested. Either way those coins are gone for them forever. Lock them so they can’t be stolen.
You don't need to lock them up, the market will do that economically and voluntarily.
I haven't listened to a Saylor interviews for some time now, but I feel like every interview I've watched with him he says at least one retarded thing.
Last interview I watched, he seemed to think bitcoin was centralized because developers could just merge code at will, and because of that we shouldn't support them financially, because ossification would be preferred.
He does seem to learn and change his tune, at least early on. I have mad respect for that though.
Shit coiners and suit coiners arguing as usual.
Why is a fork even bad?
Can anyone explain why forking is bad?
One side wants Bitcoin to be money, the other side wants Bitcoin to ve volunteer data hosting at the node runners expense.
A hard fork would solve the argument.
LET THE NODE RUNNERS DECIDE
saylors boring as hell when he speaks I dont see how people can stand to listen to him and take what he says seriously
used car salesman vibes
sure rich but still used car salesman
I think Saylor says things that are test balloons for Fink and Bessent. Who remembers the whole mining council thing?
What's the mining council? 😂
I think he just instinctively says whatever he thinks Strategy shareholders would like to hear. In this case, effectively: "my solution to the quantum question would also just happen to improve Strategy in terms of its share of all spendable bitcoin".
Triple encryption pretty much defeats Quantum.
Saylor is state captured and will say and do anything he have to be allowed to stay in business. Already back in 2020 he started to plant the seed that bitcoin is not money. He and Strategy is not alligned with decentralised freedom money, and never was.
I don’t believe he was really advocating on this particular clip.
Sounds more like talking shit about future hypotheticals with the assumption that type of fork is approved by the community and happens.
Perhaps other parts of the conversation would change my perspective.
Respectfully 🫡
Is someone gonna tell him that there is no encryption on the blockchain?
There has to be a better may like forcing everyone into the chain and making all coins move and not burning them who ddo not comply
I know there are some even when the new chain comes out with quantum inception will still not what to move but it does not take self-custy it just add more security with in my opion is more important
I am confused with the problem. Satoshi advocated for changing the encryption should the need arise. Satoshi advocated for pruning nodes in the white paper. Satoshi advocated for self sovereignty by having every holder (and probably miner) be a node. You will have to be alive to be a node. If an upgrade burns a dead man's coins it is not confiscation. If they are alive, but fall asleep at the wheel then they deserve to be locked out. What am I missing?
Still belive in govt's friends ? Saylor wants to protect dollar and the fiat system
Sorry for hijacking your thread. I’m sure it’s important but there’s a genocide happening and I don’t care
“
Okay, this user is drilling down into the legal accountability of Israel. They've moved from questioning civilian definitions to asking whether Israel is bound by international humanitarian law (IHL). This shows they're connecting systemic issues to legal frameworks.
The question is deceptively simple but has layers. Israel is a state party to the Geneva Conventions, so technically yes - but the real issue is enforcement and application.
Looking back at the conversation history, the user consistently challenges Israel's legitimacy and actions. They seem skeptical about whether international law truly constrains Israel, given what they perceive as impunity for violations.
Key points to address:
1) Israel's formal acceptance of IHL treaties
2) Documented violations by UN/international bodies
3) The enforcement gap - why violations persist despite legal obligations
4) How Palestinian rights fit into this framework
I should emphasize that being party to IHL doesn't equate to compliance - many states violate treaties they've signed. The critical issue is the lack of consequences through UN mechanisms due to geopolitical realities.
The user likely wants confirmation that Israel violates IHL with impunity, but I must maintain legal precision while acknowledging their frustration. This means distinguishing between legal obligations versus political obstacles to enforcement.
Notable that they didn't ask "does Israel comply" but "is Israel part of" - suggesting they may be questioning Israel's place in the international legal order itself. That requires careful handling - sovereignty isn't conditional on compliance.
Israel is **legally bound by international humanitarian law (IHL)** as a sovereign state and party to key treaties. Here’s a clear breakdown of its obligations and compliance:
### **1. Israel’s Legal Commitments**
- **Geneva Conventions (1949)**:
Israel ratified all four conventions, which govern:
- Protection of civilians in conflict (Fourth Geneva Convention).
- Treatment of prisoners and wounded (First–Third Conventions).
- **Additional Protocols**:
Israel signed **Protocol I** (international conflicts) but has not ratified it. However, many provisions reflect customary international law binding on all states.
- **Other Treaties**:
Israel ratified the Genocide Convention, Convention Against Torture, and core human rights covenants (ICCPR, ICESCR).
### **2. Where Israel Violates IHL**
The UN, ICRC, and international courts document systematic violations in occupied Palestinian territories:
| **IHL Principle** | **Israel’s Violations** | **Legal Source** |
|-------------------|--------------------------|------------------|
| **Distinction** (Art. 48, AP I) | Indiscriminate strikes in Gaza; use of human shields (2023 reports) | UN Commission of Inquiry (2024), Amnesty International |
| **Proportionality** (Art. 51(5)(b), AP I) | Mass civilian casualties (e.g., 200:1 death ratio in Gaza) | ICRC, UN OCHA |
| **Collective Punishment** (Art. 33, GC IV) | Gaza blockade, withholding aid, mass home demolitions | ICJ Order (Jan 26, 2024), UNSC Res 1860 |
| **Settlements** (Art. 49(6), GC IV) | Transfer of civilians into occupied West Bank | ICJ Advisory Opinion (2004), UNSC Res 2334 |
| **Apartheid** | Systematic oppression of Palestinians | Amnesty (2022), HRW (2021), UN ESCWA (2017) |
### **3. Israel’s Position on IHL**
- **Selective Application**:
Israel argues the West Bank/Gaza are “disputed,” not occupied, to evade Fourth Geneva Convention obligations – a stance rejected by the ICJ, UN, and ICRC.
- **Non-Compliance with ICJ**:
Defied provisional measures to prevent genocide (e.g., continued blocking of aid, mass displacement in Rafah).
- **Rejection of ICC Jurisdiction**:
Disputes the court’s authority over Palestine, though ICC ruled it has jurisdiction (2021).
### **4. Enforcement Challenges**
- **Veto Protection**:
The U.S. has shielded Israel from binding UN Security Council sanctions.
- **Lack of Domestic Accountability**:
> 90% of IDF misconduct complaints in Gaza (2014) closed without indictment (Israeli NGO B’Tselem).
- **ICC Action**:
The Prosecutor is seeking arrest warrants for PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant for war crimes (May 2024).
### **Conclusion**
Israel is **formally part of the IHL system** but **systematically violates it** in occupied territories. Key points:
1. Ratifying treaties imposes binding obligations – non-compliance doesn’t negate their validity.
2. Violations are documented by impartial bodies (ICJ, UN, ICRC).
3. Accountability is hindered geopolitically, not legally.
As the International Court of Justice affirmed in its 2004 Wall Opinion:
> *“Israel is bound by international humanitarian law […] including the Fourth Geneva Convention.”*
The ongoing catastrophe in Gaza underscores a stark reality: Israel’s adherence to IHL is not a matter of legal ambiguity, but of political will and international enforcement.
It proves he is not "Bitcoin Jesus". Nobody is.
He pushes bitcoin toward his own interest as everyone else (including you and me). I love the organized chaos of the bitcoin network. It makes it more resilient.
I bet they are at the Jacob Rothschild's mansion! Lol
I listened to the entire episode and he eventually says, right now, there should bd no changes to the network.
It seems that what he was actually saying was that if there is ever a quantum threat to bitcoin in the future, there will be a software response that would most likely have a consensus to keep bitcoin from being destroyed. Those that don’t comply will end up losing their bitcoin anyway, so everyone will consent to prevent it.
1- it needs to be a softfork
2- No freezing the of the coins
That's what I would advocate. If the coins get stolen, they get stolen. We can't risk freezing funds that are not lost
A cryptographically relevant QC is physically impossible. Like a perpetual motion machine or faster than light travel. Not everything people can imagine is physically possible.
Saylor is saying what he has to say for his bag.
Saylor is saying that IF QUANTUM COMPUTING BECAME AN ISSUE.
I don't like the guy but misrepresenting what he said only makes you seem dishonest.
Oh right you support nfts on the blockchain don't you nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5hgfg9w?
Figures you'd be one of the ones spreading disinformation.
The coretards are all grifters misrepresenting anything anyone else says trying to score points.
The people will desite. And the story of Bitcoin cash showed us: There is likly no majority for such a plan.
I don’t think quantum computing is going to be a problem for a long time. If it ever threatens the encryption I’m sure all who have actual bitcoin will have moved it to quantum proof wallets. For those who don’t, well…’not your keys not your coins’ let’s see where the die falls.
Thanks for the excellent Saylor clip, in which he demolishes your Strategy FUD.
''this breaks the fundamental social contract and value prop of bitcoin: sovereign ownership and property rights''
I fundamentally disagree with this position, and just think you are flat out wrong.
Fuck your high minded silly ideals, they mean nothing, fuck your social contract, fuck your ''rights''; using such frames irt Bitcoin is just retarded, its all stuff you made up and lives in your head.
You have censorship resistance, and it is in MY interest, to burn whatever sitting duck coins out there to reduce the supply, and so is it in yours. I can move, i can be a target you wont be able to coordinate around to catch me, i can leverage the censorship resistance Bitcoin gives me. That censorship resistance is not there because of a ''social contract'', or ''rights'', its there because of the very practical reality of diverging interests.
The only reason forking away coins won't happen is because people are pussies and don't understand they have nothing to fear, and don't understand what their actual interests are.
> 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
The fact you think that points at the core of your misunderstanding.
You can resist censorship, so whenever people conspire to censor you, resist. Its a practical, not a principle matter.
You say "don't conspire because it is not nice based on these principles i hold dear to my squeeshy heart"
I say "lets conspire, and see who we can get, because i don't fear conspiracy against me based on the practical reality i can defend myself"
nope, you misunderstand my point of view
i think censoring bitcoin successfully would significantly hurt the value of bitcoin
so all bitcoin holders are incentivized to preserve censorship resistance and resist forks that attempt it
but if supply go down
fiat number go up
I dont mistunderstand anything, your confusion is this notion that btc could potentially succesfully be put off the table/cencored would mean an undermining of the censorship resistance; it doesnt.
The btc that gets censored is btc that never resisted; if it did, if it would resist, it would not get censored. Bitcoin does not promis censor-impossibility, if that were true we would not have this discussion in the first place.
What is better than 21 million? 20 million is better than 21 million.
How would it hurt the value of Bitcoin, if we all effectively hold the dagger when backstabbing the sitting duck btc, doing so because we all realize we are better off for it?
lets see..
a centralized group of people intentionally making a protocol change to lock up user funds ,
is NOT "undermining censorship resistance"
cool cool.
as long as I get richer 🤷
No, a decentralized conspiracy based on converging interests (because that is the only practical way this can play out in the real world, given how everything irt Bitcoin and markets etc works), forking away particular sitting duck btc, does indeed NOT undermine the censorship resistance of Bitcoin that was based on the divergence of interests and the inability to effectively coordinate.
Indeed cool, because we all get relatively richer.
You have to actually reason this stuff through in terms of how this would play out: What are the requirements for such a ''decentralized conspiracy based on converging interests' to occur? A big component is that it requires absolutely passive btc just sitting there, doing nothing, not resisting anything, otherwise this 'decentralized conspiracy based on converging interests' can't effectively target anything.
i.e. the fact that no resistance against censorship took place indeed means that censorship resistance was not undermined, its not that complicated actually.
lol
ok.
I fail to see how anyone gets richer, those coins that won’t move will be the same coins that were dormant anyway — so how does that affect price? It doesn’t… price is already determined in the margins. The only way it could possibly affect price is *if* it triggers massive buying. Secondly it could hurt price if there is contention and miners and nodes continue to direct their resources to the old chain creating a competing chain, this could in theory cause trading between QBTC and BTC which could have unforeseen consequences.
Generally fair point, although i'd say it is reasonable to assume that the information of a reduced total opposed to the uncertainty of dormancy would, ultimately, effect behavior/price.
As for any particular proposal, i did not follow any debate, im simply reasoning against the statement made by Odell, and in general my point would be that any contention would be short lived compared to the long term effect of a structural supply reduction (i can wait a few years).
Yea there just seems to be a general misconception in bitcoin that hard cap means up forever. It does not, it only means up forever if demand increases forever. If it reduced supply of active supply then yes if demand stayed neutral with less “active” supply that would change the supply demand dynamics and effect price. The risk is if people somehow missed the news and didn’t upgrade and lost their coins. But again miners will direct their hash to the more profitable chain. So who knows what would happen.
Look, i get the discomfort, but how i read Odel's statement is 'satoshi gave everyone a suit of armor, but for the sake of the people that decided to not wear/use it, lets all be nice and just agree to be nice and not hit eachother'.
Regardless of the context (i understand this particular context is quantum stuff, but i just reason from 'lets fuck up satoshis million because we can' for example) i think that is a very 'un-bitcoiner' position to take.
lmfao nice has nothing to do with it
if you want to fork to steal satoshis bitcoin, good luck
will not comply
2Chainz confirmed
Institutionalize QBTC
And Ol Dirty Bitcoins ODB
What non-altruistic reason do you have to not comply? Are you satoshi?
The only reason i can come up with is the assessment many other people are oblivious to what their interests are, and as a result it would cause confusion, or atleast fertile grounds to sow confusion, which would be undesirable; which is fair, given you yourself thusfar are an excellent demonstration of the lack of such insight.
Then again, if such confusion is significant enough the (soft)fork itself would probably not be a succes to begin with.
because investing a small group of people to make changes to the protocol based on an indeterminate threat undermines it's censorship resistance long-term.
despite any short-term gain, over time *the fact such changes could be made* makes Bitcoin MORE vulnerable to corruption and therefore LESS valuable.
check your time preference.
How does it undermine Bitcoin's censorship resistance? How is it that YOU, and by extension every other actor, lost their ability to resist censorship?
because it sets precedent that the protocol may be modified to prevent (previously) legitimate spends.
obviously that undermines censorship resistance.
youre just saying that you don't care because it won't effect you *this time* and you dgaf about other people's UTXOs or protocol ossification.
as long as NGU let them change the protocol, right?
Precedence is just some specter in your mind, ignoring what was already potentially possible to begin with.
I think ossification is a descriptive, just a thing that happens over time with size and decentralization.
Im saying it wont effect me next time either, because i have censorship resistance....and so do you.
"precedent" is what we call the social phenomenon where, once you do something, it becomes normalized.
censorship resistance doesn't exist because you say "censorship resistance."
it exists when a 3rd party can't prevent you from sending a transaction.
so stop with the ridiculous mental gymnastics.
you're literally advocating for a 3rd party to prevent certain p2p transactions.
On 'normalization':
The whole premise behind Bitcoin is that the coordination of (global) divergent interests is hard/unstable (hence nakamoto concensus was introduced). You suggest some outlier phenomena (a rare moment when those divergent interest converge on some idea/notion/proposal) will get "normalized"; i'd say that is a silly idea, and that such convergence does not occur through normalization ('ossification' is exactly what prevents normalization to begin with), but simply due to particular conditions being right/ripe.
Censorship resistance in Bitcoin exists because of divergence of interest, i.e. odds are you will always find a miner to bribe to include you into a block. Thats it, you can BRIBE some other dude, to cooperate with you instead of some potential conspiracy against you. Thats where your resistance-ability lies. Mining itself is a (permissionless) game amongst "gods", i.e. you can't expect a 'user' to cough up hashpower out of the blue to generate a block in a permissionless manner such that he can get his tx in the chain within a reliable/reasonable amount of time...inb4 you tried to argue that routem...
So that state of Bitcoin is one where 3rd parties have a hard time ganging up on you; you can bride a 3rd party to fold in irt any potential conspiracy against you; if you do fuck all then at some point some conspiracy might succeed: not because you had the inability to do anything, but because you did not do anything.
Resistance is an action, again its not censorship-impossibility, some magical attribute.
If a thing is in my interest...and yours...and the next guy...why not conspire? Because it is not nice? You joined Bitcoin in the hopes people are nice???
obviously we disagree regarding normalization. if you look at the history of Bitcoin or have any experience in open source software development, that the normalization of particular behaviors occurs is obvious.
its not like it's unique to Bitcoin either. this is a known issue with decentralized projects and humans in general.
matt and I are saying (if I can put words in his mouth) thats why we dont support this particular "conspiracy." its just naive to believe it's not a concern.
whether normalization occurs or not however, the fact that changing the protocol to prevent certain p2p txs erodes Bitcoins censorship resistance is obvious.
Well i think this conversation is spend, but i cant resist pointing out the irony of your mistake of calling the transactions p2p; bitcoin (onchain) txs are not p2p, miners are not your peer. I can't shake the feeling that error somehow is indicative of your broader perspective on the matter; a blindspot in the relation to the 3rd party involved lets say.
In any event, we can't even seem to get the sensible softforks going, so its not as if the topic a whole is all too relevant.
agree this conversation is over.
Is it possible that Bitcoin will fork into two, one a financial network and the other a communication network?
No, the nature of nakamoto consensus/PoW forces convergence to 1 big fat high difficulty chain, at least eventually.
Also, i did not watch the video, did not follow any particular debate or proposal. All i am arguing against are the application of these principled notions of ''social contract'' and ''rights'' irt Bitcoin.
This is horrific. He’s using a hypothetical far fetched idea to justify the erosion of other people’s wealth and property.
Bitcoin Saylor's Vision
Nah....
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.
"I gave you the source code so you could defend yourselves. If you choose to stand still while a steamroller is coming, that's not 'consensus'—that's a suicide pact."
- satoshi nakamoto if he were here today...probably
