Replying to Avatar Matt Corallo

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 where a CRQC (cryptographically relevant quantum computer) is on the short-term horizon, these coins will not remain with their original owners. No amount of hopium will solve that. Instead your options are only (a) freeze or (b) let some CRQC owner eventually steal them. I definitely prefer (a).

Luckily, it doesn’t have to be a lot of coins - any addresses which were created from a standard seed phrase + HD derivation can be recovered with a QC-safe ZK proof. It’s only the very very old coins (or more esoteric wallets) that would be frozen.

Finally, it’s worth pointing out that I think this is inevitable. In a theoretical future where a CRQC is on the horizon, both forks will exist. The market will ultimately decide which bitcoin they value more - one with an extra million coins of supply as the CRQC owners steal lost coins or the one without. I cannot imagine the market preferring the former.

nostr:note1yu8qh0l4cq9gg9fpk4jclp6q0mepuyacq8ha5ljnx76ang52t9pq2npf36
Avatar
Judge Hardcase 2w ago

Even in a theoretical world where a CRQC is widely assumed to be on the 'short-term' horizon, I would argue that way more than 2 forks will exist - all with their own biases to determine when to start freezing coins... and each with a strong motive to hard fork away from any soft fork that may potentially usurp a fork's chosen freeze date (block) - including the motive of the don't freeze fork to hard fork away from any freeze soft forks.

Everyone has their reasons to freeze or not to freeze. What will be even trickier for those who want to freeze is forming a consensus on exactly WHEN to freeze before it's even knowable that the assumed horizon will ever actually be realized. I say, good luck with that.

Economic utility (i.e. mostly the size of a network) will determine the bitcoin the market values most; not the size of the supply.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.