Thread

so... the "social problem" is a (perhaps manufactured) crisis? for example, nobody here can gauge the likelihood of QC in the next 10 yrs. how is anybody deficient in information supposed to decide if they support a technical solution to a problem that may not exist? so your slippery slope is an issue becoming precedent for making *technical changes* in response to threats we cant actually measure.

I agree it’s not a technical problem, but of course technical details impact the available options and should be considered. Yes, we agree that “preemptively stealing coins because they may theoretically get stolen in the future” is a terrible idea. Considering such a change at any time prior to when it’s clear that a CRQC is on the immediate horizon and clearly going to happen would be absolutely insane. But once you do reach that point, some vulnerable coins are not going to be claimable by their owners no matter what you do. I prefer to allow some of the owners to get their funds back by freezing and enabling claims via a ZK proof of seedphrase over letting some QC startup steal all the coins. Seems kinda obvious that the community would prefer that to me, but I guess maybe not.