Thread

🛡️
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.

Replies (71)

↩ replying to ODELL
"calling it as soft fork seems disengenuous" You can do better than this "Hard fork" and "soft fork" are well-defined technical terms. Either can cause a chain split This was explained thousands of times to the RDTS/Knotsi crowd in recent months, on Twitter and in their Telegram group chat. But they were told by Liar @npub1lh27...a9nk that "hard" and "soft" mean "split" and "no split" If you want to talk about controversy, and consensus, and chain splits, please do
🛡️
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?
🛡️
↩ replying to Laan Tungir
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.
I wish you were that concerned with the CSAM upgrade that was shipped by a handful of guys two months ago, despite the enormous opposition of the broad community. Unfortunately, as it is always with you OG influensooors, it’s only the obvious attacks that needs to be addressed, not the sneaky and smart ones. 😩
This BS narrative about coin forfeiture- is a false directive and does little if anything but confuse people of the nature and ethos of Bitcoin and sound money… it is theft disguised as policy - and the very thing that Bitcoin is designed to mitigate. This isnt Government money - it’s Bitcoin - There is no expiration date, or requirement that has to be fulfilled In other words I will do whatever the F I want with my Bitcoin including never touching it - for whatever the f reason I choose including to demonstrate It took 15 years for the suits to catch up…. Bitcoin is for everyone- and also to all those muddying the waters and making it seem like Bitcoin is just like ETH or any other centralized 💩 coin…GFY
I say let him try to fork. Good luck forming any kind of consensus on when exactly to freeze coins ahead of a threat that will necessarily not have actually yet materialized (or it will have been too late). If such a worldwide consensus did manage to form, I would die on the minority chain. I just don't see it as particularly plausible.
This is the fear that someone will somehow obtain control of Satoshi era 'lost' coins. This isn't about any specific person losing control of their UTxOs to a quantum attack. Initially we'll have a soft fork for a new type of address that is somehow quantum resistant. I don't think that is too contraversial although I won't be in a rush to move my UTxOs. You'll then have a hard fork pushed that nullifies UTxOs on all legacy addresses. This is the real threat. Banning addresses of a certain type. This is a form of censorship pushed under the guise of 'for your own safety'. Once we go down that path of banning addresses, we set a very dangerous precedent. Bitcoin would be no longer censorship resistant & decentralised. We then have 2 Bitcoins, 1 captured & 1 free. The real question is which one would people value? The captured Bitcoin that doesn't have all valid UTxOs available or the free Bitcoin that potentially has Satoshi's coins being spent. I think the ultimate decider will be whether those coins move. While those coins stay dormant, the uncensored Bitcoin will be the winner. As soon as those coins move, the need for a hard fork can be easily justified. Pre-emptively hard forking to ban addresses should be fought with everything we have. Bitcoin is about individuals asserting their sovereignty. Nobody can force you to run their code.
🛡️
Thinking about this some more. Matt, let's assume your proposed solution gets implemented, and new quantum resistant addresses are created through a soft fork. It's tested in the wild over time and no coins are frozen. It's voluntary. Some people move, some don't, and some coins are dead and can't move. Then quantum hits. Someone with a quantum computer start grabbing all the remaining coins, including Satoshi's. They then move those coins over to the quantum resistant addresses. Is that the best option? Giving the quantum guys all that corn? Plus it could be a government. I don't have an answer to this question, but having some sort of cutoff date before quantum hits doesn't seem completely crazy given the alternative. I will admit however that coming to consensus on a cutoff date would seem nearly impossible.
🛡️
I generally like Saylor, but I get real uneasy when he takes philosophical positions I don’t agree with, especially because so many people seem to follow his lead without a second thought. Even scrolling through the comments, there are a few too many who don’t appear to have fully thought through the implications of freezing coins. Fear is a powerful drug.
He's not advocating for anything he got presented a scenario and he presented a maybe solution. Nowhere here He advocated for upgrade for code change for anything. And I hate sailor I think he's the government, but in this video he's not advocating for no upgrade bro.
Saylor pitching number-go-up so hard, that every question is answered with the basis of maximum number-go-up. Quantum risk? -confiscate coins because that’s what will make the number go up the most. Everything is good for bitcoin but not everything makes number-go-up. The same basis logic could be done with communism (minimize wealth): hard fork and distribute top 99% wallets into 8 billion wallets. Would also require some very very large blocks and is the most stupid hard fork of all time. View quoted note →
"Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked” - quote Warren Buffet Ref. @ODELL's poll: “what’s more likely? 1) satoshi’s coin is stolen by a quantum attacker 2) saylor’s coin is stolen by the us gov” —————————————— Mass withdrawals from Coinbase-IOU’s, into self custody freedom money, would in effect be a bank run on Coinbase to “discover who's been swimming naked.” Bank runs can happen quickly on issuers of Bitcoin-IOU’s from custodians like FTX, Mt. Gox, Coinbase, Celsius, BlockFi etc. Ask yourself. What would happen if the following categories started mass withdrawals for Coinbase-IOU’s on Sunday evening? • plebs • @npub15dql...lm5m • freedom fighters • “Strategy” AKA $MSTR • every other major BTC “Treasury” Company •11/12 US Spot Bitcoin ETFs, except Fidelity / $FBTC, which, according to them self, practices self custody. What would happen with the BTC-price denominated in filthy fiat currencies, after the Coinbase bank run? But remember what @Jeff Booth have tried to teach you in 21+ Bitcoin-podcast interviews: “You can’t measure the system, from within the system” —————————————— “Not your keys not your coins”🔑 View quoted note → View quoted note → View quoted note → View quoted note → View quoted note →
Let’s face it. If quantum proofing is going to work, then addresses that don’t move are going to be vulnerable. If you give everybody 2 years to move coins to quantum proof addresses, and some don’t move, you have to figure those people lost their keys, are dead, or not interested. Either way those coins are gone for them forever. Lock them so they can’t be stolen.
I haven't listened to a Saylor interviews for some time now, but I feel like every interview I've watched with him he says at least one retarded thing. Last interview I watched, he seemed to think bitcoin was centralized because developers could just merge code at will, and because of that we shouldn't support them financially, because ossification would be preferred. He does seem to learn and change his tune, at least early on. I have mad respect for that though.
Shit coiners and suit coiners arguing as usual. Why is a fork even bad? Can anyone explain why forking is bad? One side wants Bitcoin to be money, the other side wants Bitcoin to ve volunteer data hosting at the node runners expense. A hard fork would solve the argument. LET THE NODE RUNNERS DECIDE
Saylor is state captured and will say and do anything he have to be allowed to stay in business. Already back in 2020 he started to plant the seed that bitcoin is not money. He and Strategy is not alligned with decentralised freedom money, and never was.
I don’t believe he was really advocating on this particular clip. Sounds more like talking shit about future hypotheticals with the assumption that type of fork is approved by the community and happens. Perhaps other parts of the conversation would change my perspective. Respectfully 🫡
🛡️
There has to be a better may like forcing everyone into the chain and making all coins move and not burning them who ddo not comply I know there are some even when the new chain comes out with quantum inception will still not what to move but it does not take self-custy it just add more security with in my opion is more important
I am confused with the problem. Satoshi advocated for changing the encryption should the need arise. Satoshi advocated for pruning nodes in the white paper. Satoshi advocated for self sovereignty by having every holder (and probably miner) be a node. You will have to be alive to be a node. If an upgrade burns a dead man's coins it is not confiscation. If they are alive, but fall asleep at the wheel then they deserve to be locked out. What am I missing?
Sorry for hijacking your thread. I’m sure it’s important but there’s a genocide happening and I don’t care “<think> Okay, this user is drilling down into the legal accountability of Israel. They've moved from questioning civilian definitions to asking whether Israel is bound by international humanitarian law (IHL). This shows they're connecting systemic issues to legal frameworks. The question is deceptively simple but has layers. Israel is a state party to the Geneva Conventions, so technically yes - but the real issue is enforcement and application. Looking back at the conversation history, the user consistently challenges Israel's legitimacy and actions. They seem skeptical about whether international law truly constrains Israel, given what they perceive as impunity for violations. Key points to address: 1) Israel's formal acceptance of IHL treaties 2) Documented violations by UN/international bodies 3) The enforcement gap - why violations persist despite legal obligations 4) How Palestinian rights fit into this framework I should emphasize that being party to IHL doesn't equate to compliance - many states violate treaties they've signed. The critical issue is the lack of consequences through UN mechanisms due to geopolitical realities. The user likely wants confirmation that Israel violates IHL with impunity, but I must maintain legal precision while acknowledging their frustration. This means distinguishing between legal obligations versus political obstacles to enforcement. Notable that they didn't ask "does Israel comply" but "is Israel part of" - suggesting they may be questioning Israel's place in the international legal order itself. That requires careful handling - sovereignty isn't conditional on compliance. </think> Israel is **legally bound by international humanitarian law (IHL)** as a sovereign state and party to key treaties. Here’s a clear breakdown of its obligations and compliance: ### **1. Israel’s Legal Commitments** - **Geneva Conventions (1949)**: Israel ratified all four conventions, which govern: - Protection of civilians in conflict (Fourth Geneva Convention). - Treatment of prisoners and wounded (First–Third Conventions). - **Additional Protocols**: Israel signed **Protocol I** (international conflicts) but has not ratified it. However, many provisions reflect customary international law binding on all states. - **Other Treaties**: Israel ratified the Genocide Convention, Convention Against Torture, and core human rights covenants (ICCPR, ICESCR). ### **2. Where Israel Violates IHL** The UN, ICRC, and international courts document systematic violations in occupied Palestinian territories: | **IHL Principle** | **Israel’s Violations** | **Legal Source** | |-------------------|--------------------------|------------------| | **Distinction** (Art. 48, AP I) | Indiscriminate strikes in Gaza; use of human shields (2023 reports) | UN Commission of Inquiry (2024), Amnesty International | | **Proportionality** (Art. 51(5)(b), AP I) | Mass civilian casualties (e.g., 200:1 death ratio in Gaza) | ICRC, UN OCHA | | **Collective Punishment** (Art. 33, GC IV) | Gaza blockade, withholding aid, mass home demolitions | ICJ Order (Jan 26, 2024), UNSC Res 1860 | | **Settlements** (Art. 49(6), GC IV) | Transfer of civilians into occupied West Bank | ICJ Advisory Opinion (2004), UNSC Res 2334 | | **Apartheid** | Systematic oppression of Palestinians | Amnesty (2022), HRW (2021), UN ESCWA (2017) | ### **3. Israel’s Position on IHL** - **Selective Application**: Israel argues the West Bank/Gaza are “disputed,” not occupied, to evade Fourth Geneva Convention obligations – a stance rejected by the ICJ, UN, and ICRC. - **Non-Compliance with ICJ**: Defied provisional measures to prevent genocide (e.g., continued blocking of aid, mass displacement in Rafah). - **Rejection of ICC Jurisdiction**: Disputes the court’s authority over Palestine, though ICC ruled it has jurisdiction (2021). ### **4. Enforcement Challenges** - **Veto Protection**: The U.S. has shielded Israel from binding UN Security Council sanctions. - **Lack of Domestic Accountability**: > 90% of IDF misconduct complaints in Gaza (2014) closed without indictment (Israeli NGO B’Tselem). - **ICC Action**: The Prosecutor is seeking arrest warrants for PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant for war crimes (May 2024). ### **Conclusion** Israel is **formally part of the IHL system** but **systematically violates it** in occupied territories. Key points: 1. Ratifying treaties imposes binding obligations – non-compliance doesn’t negate their validity. 2. Violations are documented by impartial bodies (ICJ, UN, ICRC). 3. Accountability is hindered geopolitically, not legally. As the International Court of Justice affirmed in its 2004 Wall Opinion: > *“Israel is bound by international humanitarian law […] including the Fourth Geneva Convention.”* The ongoing catastrophe in Gaza underscores a stark reality: Israel’s adherence to IHL is not a matter of legal ambiguity, but of political will and international enforcement.
I listened to the entire episode and he eventually says, right now, there should bd no changes to the network. It seems that what he was actually saying was that if there is ever a quantum threat to bitcoin in the future, there will be a software response that would most likely have a consensus to keep bitcoin from being destroyed. Those that don’t comply will end up losing their bitcoin anyway, so everyone will consent to prevent it.