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
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.
