who decides whether a quantum threat is “imminent?”

why should anyone trust an “altruistic” actor to destroy someone’s property rights before a quantum computer does?

how do you know coins are lost or if someone has chosen not to move to quantum resistant addresses?

I’m sorry but I’m not falling for this bullshit where the network gives away its rights under the guise of an altruistic actor.

It sets a dangerous precedent. In the future, what “attacks” will be deemed serious enough to again infringe on property rights?

bitcoin’s fundamental value comes from the fact that the network cannot under any circumstance freeze your funds. If I choose not to go to quantum resistant addresses, and a quantum computer cracks my keys, that’s on me and it was my choice.

This all stinks of bullshit from someone that wants to infringe on property rights.

I'm shocked by what I'm reading. If you freeze or burn Bitcoin UTXOs that you merely presume to be lost, you fundamentally undermine Bitcoin's core promise of censorship resistance. This causes irreparable damage.

And why? Out of fear the price might crash? Prices can recover, Bitcoin's credibility cannot.

Lost bitcoins are like treasure in a sunken ship, currently unreachable to everyone. The development of quantum computers will change this situation. Whoever is then able to crack the old private keys may lawfully recover the treasure. comparable to a finder who, after centuries, raises a wreck. In order for fair conditions to prevail and for each owner to have the same chance to secure his property, the timely introduction of quantum‑resistant addresses is essential.

You’re confusing a core principle of bitcoin for the way the core principle was written down. It’s (obviously) a core principle of Bitcoin that coins never be frozen or stolen by any action aside from a mistake by their owners. However, that’s not the question we face if a CRQC becomes reality. The coins *will* be stolen or frozen, there is no other option [1]. In the face of that, you either pick that they be stolen by some QC startup, or you pick that they be frozen by fork. Also…

[1] There is actually one other option. If the keys for the coins were created with a seedphrase-based wallet, we can allow them to be recovered by their owners, but *only* if we freeze vulnerable spend modes!

Except it’s not quite! If you freeze vulnerable spend paths then you can allow coins which were stored in wallets with seed phrases to be recovered. You cannot otherwise.

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

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

List of popular movies that:

-Feature a Christmas tree prominently or are set during Christmas but are NOT typically considered Christmas movies:

1. **Die Hard** - Set on Christmas Eve, it features several scenes with Christmas decorations, including a tree.

2. **Lethal Weapon** - Takes place around the holiday season, with a memorable scene at a Christmas tree farm.

3. **Gremlins** - While often debated as a Christmas movie, it's set during Christmas, including scenes with a tree and decorations.

4. **Iron Man 3** - Much of the movie takes place during the Christmas season, with Christmas trees and decorations visible throughout.

5. **Batman Returns** - Features a Gotham City festooned with Christmas decorations, including trees, though it's more of a superhero film.

6. **Edward Scissorhands** - Includes scenes where Edward decorates Christmas trees in the neighborhood.

7. **Trading Places** - Set during the holiday season, with a notable Christmas party scene where Dan Aykroyd's character appears in a Santa suit.

8. **The Apartment** - Billy Wilder's film has significant action around Christmas, including scenes with Christmas trees.

9. **Eyes Wide Shut** - Christmas is a backdrop with decorations and a tree visible, but the story's focus is far from holiday cheer.

10. **Kiss Kiss Bang Bang** - A detective story set during Christmas, with holiday elements like trees and parties.

11. **Little Women** (1994 and 2019 adaptations) - Both versions have scenes set at Christmas with a tree, but the story extends beyond the holiday.

12. **Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone** - Features a Christmas scene at Hogwarts with a beautifully decorated tree.

13. **Catch Me If You Can** - Includes several Christmas scenes, with holiday decorations like trees playing a role in the narrative.

These films often use the Christmas setting to enhance their narrative or atmosphere but don't focus on traditional Christmas themes or narratives. This list reflects insights from various web sources discussing movies with Christmas elements that aren't necessarily about the holiday.

nostr:note14nu9tg7j8v5pw7agclmfzx9kpvwczzs9suq2rqzfceqz0hgh9quqtvcx9s

It's at a point now where it's almost impossible for me to use the "regular" internet. I can't access half the sites. The reason? I care about my digital hygiene and thus use a VPN. Sometimes switching to a different VPN or switching the country of the VPN works; other times it does not. Oh well, I guess I'm not going to watch that video, or read that article, or look at that picture. Whatever.

In addition to that, if I'm not blocked completely, I have to prove that I'm human every step of the way. Captchas, re-captchas, Cloudflare checkboxes, the whole shebang. I am human. I promise. And I am very annoyed. Outright angry, even. I doubt that any robot will ever be as annoyed as I am right now about the current state of the internet.

What annoys me most, actually, is that all these measures don't really work. There's bots everywhere. Robots get access to the stuff anyway, using farms of humans, just like in the good old days of WoW gold farming. The centralized "safety" nets of Cloudflare et al brought down large swaths of the internet multiple times in the last couple of weeks alone, and as things centralize more and more these outages will happen more and more.

I'm very close to breaking up with the legacy internet. I'm human, I can cryptographically prove that I'm human, and I have sats to spend. But the legacy internet doesn't care about that. It cares about farming me and my data, while annoying me to no end. I've been nostr only for a while now, but that was only on the "social media" side. 2026 might be the year where I go nostr-only for everything, or to phrase it slightly differently: permissionless for everything.

No more "are you human?"

No more "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

No more cookie banners, paywalls, and AI slop.

No more being treated like a child.

Even if it means that I'll have to self-host everything.

Even if it means that I'll have to build & maintain stuff myself.

Even if it means that it's a lot of work and pain.

Nothing worth having ever comes easy.

But the easy stuff is not worth having in the first place.

Here's to the year to come, and the new corner of the internet, build on cryptography and webs-of-trust. Real value. Real connections. Real humans.

Here's to nostr.

This is a real document from the released Epstein files today.

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.

I'm just happy we're finally back to arguing about actually interesting conundrums like quantum risks rather than retarded bullshit like spam. 😎

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

So you are ok when some startup steals 1M BTC from Satoshi?

That's the Core position, Loops bip has overwhelming support and dissent is banned or shadow edited

what do you mean? people have been worried about this since 2010. its literally one of the reasons why p2pkh was created. before it was only p2pk

The neat part is that I have no need to convince anyone. The dynamics of the network are heavily in my favor and disadvantage the pro-filter fools.

Yeah, they said run knots, so we do. Problem solved.

I always said the issue of Luke losing most of his bitcoins IS a big deal. He no longer has a financial interest in bitcoins success plus when he went to the feds to cry for help they very easily could put him on their payroll. Lord knows he needed money. And they get a mole inside Bitcoin. A very symbiotic relationship indeed.

Plus Luke clearly has a bone to pick with Bitcoin community. And it is important to know that this individual is a little bit mentally unsound.

He is 100% on point in this video. This is how bitcoin network works and should work.

Market decides and fees make that transparent.

Real OP_RETURN limits requires a fork. It should be enforced by the chain rules.

There, I said it.

I like Bitcoin. And I don’t like censorship. People can use Bitcoin in ways that you don’t like. The protocol is designed to make that possible. Knots won’t stop jpegs, sorry. And Bitcoin is better and more valuable for it.

this guy thinks money is being more than just money makes it better money nostr:note1gtcsu2nz2tkgs95w25sntp8cf9rphpy8m3cj2j8awgvgg8rm9s3qe889zu

I really can't understand the view that insists that all users of Bitcoin must bow down to and obey the dictates of the Bitcoin Core developers. That they somehow have this secret knowledge that us plebs can't possibly understand.

It flies entirely in the face of the cypherpunk ethos and the principles of decentralization.

JB's argument is that Bitcoin Core is "meritocratic" - that's complete bullshit. They shut down ideas they don't like and do the things they're paid to do. Meritocracy is multiple implementations competing with each other in the battlefield of ideas.

Knots is gaining ground on that one.

I don’t know how to reply😅

fragmented clients would be really bad for bitcoin, small code divergences could lead to really subtle and bad splits that might not be noticed for a long time. That doesn’t keep you up at night?

Another reason why it’s important that this system is run by people who understand these issues, not just based on feels

Where's all my 45 and over folks?

I'm 52 and I feel like everyone here is like 33, tops

lol

I’m currently playing Hammershlagen with a bunch of Romanians who escaped communism and I joked “you have to say the best thing Ceaușescu did as you hit it,” and without missing a beat the first person to swing the hammer said “he died.”