Absolutely adorable when folks try to tell me what I should say or how I should say it, because it might make some people think poorly of me.
Let me be clear: I shall say whatever I damn well please and my audience may think whatever they damn well please of me.
I'm not a politician and I am not seeking your approval.
That's one major issue. Other issues are incentivizing procrastinators to upgrade their security, plus protecting users from losing their coins to an attacker.
Those two things are unrelated.
https://blog.lopp.net/when-do-bitcoin-node-operators-upgrade/
Thank goodness I'm neither a politician nor do I need to convince the retards!
Or with someone who has no understanding of the issue!
You have no idea what you're talking about, that statistic has no relationship to my BIP.
You should present your proof of this claim to the world so that we can save countless time and resources.
Disallowing spending from specific script types is a restriction of the existing rule set, which is a soft fork. Read my BIP for details.
https://github.com/jlopp/bips/blob/quantum_migration/bip-post-quantum-migration.mediawiki
It's because Bitcoin is incredibly well designed. All of the low hanging fruit has been harvested, now we're just trimming fringe along the edges.
There are no quantum adversaries YET, but I literally talked to some of the most likely future ones at the quantum summit this year.
You'll need to be more specific regarding your conspiratorial questions. I'm not personally funded by anyone, rather I am a funder of dozens of companies and organizations. Casa has been funded by several VC firms over the years, but they don't tell us what to do nor do my Casa duties have much relation to my Bitcoin ecosystem projects.
None of these are hard forks.
Yes, you're free to continue running whatever node software you wish.
The fact that you think I'm making an argument shows how ignorant you are.
Brainwashed puritan pleb market share, sure.
In terms of actual economic market share, notsomuch.
A natural consequence of building a huge audience is that some of them will hate you as a result of your words or actions. Some people hating me doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Bitcoin is for anyone, though it's clearly not for everyone, nor does it operate via any known governance model. If you're bothered by the power distribution of entities in Bitcoin, you're always free to leave.
I look forward to seeing your "better implementations."
I suggest you get to work building them instead of crying on social media.
Yes, a quantum adversary is theoretical, but it's catastrophic if it becomes practical.
ZKPs are an afterthought, I haven't even explored it deeply. If you have an alternative proposal for how to construct a proof of HD wallet ownership that doesn't require broadcasting the xpub globally and exposing it to quantum adversaries, I'm all ears.
FYI, accusing someone of having underhanded motives is not a great tactic for progressing constructive rational discourse.
That's fine, but Bitcoin is not a democracy in which human votes are counted.
Every individual node operator decides for themselves which rules they accept.
Beyond that, what rules become "Bitcoin" in practice are whatever subset of rules have the overwhelming majority of economic actors enforcing them.
No one can be coerced into anything. It's all voluntary. If an economic supermajority decides they no longer wish to accept transactions that could be a quantum adversary, they are free to do so.
That type of scheme is theoretically doable but I don't find it practical because almost nobody is going to bother.
Opt-in PQC makes sense today when the threat is remote.
If the threat becomes imminent then opt-in only becomes far less useful.
They would remain frozen until a transaction with a signature that is accompanied with an appropriate ZK proof is broadcast.
In terms of number of humans, maybe.
In terms of economic majority of holding entities, I point you to Saylor as a prime example of how I expect whales to act.
There is no "source" other than this conversation - it's all theoretical.
Clearly. And no one is seriously claiming this should be done today.
What we're saying is we should be PLANNING today for all possible contingencies.
As explained in the article, property rights get shattered in either case, so it's a moot point.
Conversely, all the folks who were staying out due to fears of quantum theft can buy your coins.
Reminder that I attempted to exhaustively game out the arguments for and against freezing quantum vulnerable bitcoin 9 months ago. The latest round of debate seems to just be rehashing the same arguments, but if I missed any novel points, please let me know!