Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar Matt Corallo

It’s *way* more than 5%! A CRQC operated by a private entity will almost certainly not be interested in stealing 5% of the supply and sitting on it, they’ll likely want to sell a decent chunk of their stolen coins to pay back investors for the immense R&D cost they spent. The total quantity of coins available on markets is not anywhere close to 20M, it’s a tiny fraction. Having something even like 1-2% of total Bitcoin supply flood the market at once is going to have a very large impact on price.

As for your claim that this is somehow changing a fundamental property of Bitcoin, i think you’re losing the Bitcoin philosophy for the way it happened to be written down. Yes, it’s critical for Bitcoin to have a hard line in the sand against coin theft. But you don’t get to pick here - the coins are going to be stolen or frozen no matter what you do. Getting myopic about *who* is doing it isn’t a part of Bitcoin’s value proposition, you’re just reading too much into the way the rules happened to be written down, not the reason for them.

Avatar
Matt Corallo 1w ago

Oh also I forgot to respond to your second point - if we allow for claims via a seedphrase-based recovery scheme, we will not know which coins are frozen and which are not, so it remains 21M Bitcoin :)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.