> A cryptographically-relevant quantum computer is physically impossible
Lord Kelvin : "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
As bitcoiners, we can't be bearish on tech.
Why not simply ADD quantum resistance? Not removing the current scheme, just adding quantum resistance as an optional extra for those who are willing to pay the extra fee.
For small amounts, I'm okay with receiving and sending a hot potato.
But when moving sats to my cold storage "pension fund", I'd be more than willing to pay more in fees to cover the extra quantum resistance.
As a bitcoiner, I don't feel like risking my family's financial future on your mathematical assurances of impossibility of the quantum threat.
#quantum #bitcoin #btc #QC
Lord Kelvin had never seen a bird, I guess? 🕊️
Him being laughably wrong about airplanes doesn’t mean nature has no laws.
Physics is not a market. It’s not bearish or bullish to notice that some things simply don’t exist in the universe.
You’re coming from a good place — protecting your family sats.
That’s exactly what I’m doing too.
QC FUD is the real threat to those sats, not a quantum computer that has never appeared in 40 years.
Pushing QR into Bitcoin right now doesn’t “add safety.”
It does three concrete, permanent things:
1. **Security risk** — every PQ algo is new, complex, and nowhere near the battle-testing ECC has survived for decades.
2. **Fee explosion** — 15–50× higher fees forever (yes, even “optional” eventually prices normal users out).
3. **Centralization** — massive witness bloat kills pruning, kills cheap nodes, kills decentralization.
That’s why miners and big-blockers quietly love QC FUD — it’s free advertising for bigger blocks and higher fees.
These hype cycles are just part of the fiat world. We can't fall for them when they don't make sense, or we will get played.
Your cold-storage pension fund is safest exactly as it is today.
Let's let Bitcoin get screwed up and/or captured because of a ghost story.
The safe move for Bitcoin is to ignore this FUD. You need QR changes to Bitcoin like you need a COVID jab.
Tick tock next block.
* Let's NOT let Bitcoin get screwed up or captured because of a ghost story, is what I meant to write, of course.
On (1) : absolutely, and I wouldn't want bitcoin to replace ECC with PQ algos. I would want PQ algos added. So, if I choose to transfer to an address that also uses a PQ algo, I would then need to sign with ECC *and* with that PQ algo. For big amounts, I wouldn't want to risk it being at the mercy of a technological advancement.
On (2) : higher fees : if bitcoin Core wants to consider that, there is a lot of work to do in making it harder for spam data to price out actual monetary transactions. The higher fees argument might have hit harder last year but v30 changed that (on top of what taproot and segwit did). They even changed the definition of bitcoin to make it into a jpg network instead of p2p money.
On (3) : on killing cheap nodes : again, same as with (2), v30 pretty much affirms that Core doesn't care about that. They'll have us relay whatever spam spammers want to spam us with. Pruning is not an interesting option because it kills archival nodes and kills electrum servers.
If we fix the bad incentives to spam the network with non-monetary transactions (thereby limiting the undue competition for blockspace), we can afford to protect the network by giving the option (for those who prefer that) to also have a PQ algo in addition to ECC.
That might actually make blockspace more competitive, while keep bitcoin a p2p money network, and might be good long-term for the network when the mining needs to run only on miner fees.
Many serious people are saying that quantum will be a threat. I'm not technically competent enough to know one way or the other. But giving what's at stake, adding an optional (additional) PQ seems to be the way to go.
That's how I had read it.
Also, I have the same opinion as you do about the death jabs.
We agree: Bitcoin is money, spam is bad.
Adding PQ support is a perfect new spam vector.
15–50× bigger signatures, un-filterable.
Spammers will mint them at industrial scale the day it lands.
Execution risk is massive: new opcodes, new algos, new consensus rules = new bugs, new side-channels, new attack surface.
Security risk: PQ algos are brand-new, nowhere near ECC’s decades of battle-testing.
Centralization risk: permanent chain bloat, pruning dies, cheap nodes die.
Even if it starts “optional,” the signal is deafening: Bitcoin no longer trusts ECC.
Panic spreads.
Everyone — in Bitcoin and across the entire crypto space — rushes to abandon ECC. Chaotic consolidation waves, dust storms, tax headaches, for years.
And scaring people away from ECC sets the broader crypto wars back years.
People ditch the best proven, private, efficient public-key system we have for a bloated, untested replacement because of a ghost story.
Have you seen that meme going around showing the 40 years of developing cryptography that it took to create Bitcoin? Taking cryptography off track is seriously bad for the world.
If we do this we will hand the control system a critical propaganda win and drive the whole ecosystem away from the strongest tool we actually possess.
All for a threat based on idea that this market bubble can somehow defeat the laws of physics.
We’re getting played.
Similar situation. Here come the experts, hiding behind science nobody can really follow, big fake emergency.
Take the jab!
Stop using ECC!
Climate.
Quantum.
AGI.
COVID.
...
It all sort of has the same fingerprint.
Doom. Salvation. Science. Grift.
Money. Centralization. Control.
But again, I'm not even suggesting that we stop using ECC. I'm only talking about adding to it (optionally, for those who want to).
I hear you.
If it was just that easy, it would be fine.
But the problem is that adding the option is just not as easy as it sounds.
It would be a massive, dangerous, detrimental change to Bitcoin.
And it would be a huge setback for our fight against the system of surveillance and control, which is also dangerous to Bitcoin and our families.
And there is no evidence that the core problem of QC is touchable. All the scientists have done is improve isolation. They have never budged the scaling law of QM itself. So it would be based on pure speculation and hype... Coming from people who stuff their bags on that hype. Or people grifting off of it.
We've got to hold the line. It's just FUD.
