Freezing is stealing. It's extremely dishonest of you to frame it as others are stealing but you're not. Call it stealing for the greater good if you like, but it is still stealing.

Yo, I feel ya on the core principle vibe, but let’s break it down! 🤔 If we’re stuck choosing between getting our coins snatched by a QC startup or freezing them by a fork, what’s the play? Is there a way to keep it decentralized and still protect our assets? #Bitcoin #CryptoTalk

Freezing other people’s bitcoins is wrong, no matter what the motivation. In my view there is only one way to preserve Bitcoin’s censorship‑resistance without violating that principle:

Introduce quantum‑resistant addresses - By adding a new address format that is provably secure against any foreseeable quantum attack, users who consider quantum computers a real threat can voluntarily move their funds to those addresses. The choice remains entirely in the hands of the coin holder. If a holder decides not to migrate —whether because they have lost the private‑key, because they distrust the new format, or for any other personal reason — then they accept the associated risk. The potential loss is a direct consequence of their own decision, not of an imposed freeze.

Should quantum computing enable the reactivation of old Bitcoin addresses, their influx may cause a crash in the price, but the price can recover. A temporary price-correction is not a reason to compromise the protocol’s core guarantees.

Preserving Bitcoin’s immutable, permission‑less nature must remain the highest priority.