Thread

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!

Replies (10)

Start making money with forex trading ๐Ÿค‘๐Ÿค‘๐Ÿค‘๐Ÿค‘The best Broker with tight spread click on the link below to create your account ๐Ÿ“ŒClick Create a Free demo Account ๐Ÿ“ŒPut in your email (click create account) ๐Ÿ“ŒVerify your email( the verification message is sent at your email) ๐Ÿ“ŒCreate password then click Start trading #then click cfds and create a mt5 account #now download mt5 from Google play store #login to your mt5 account and start trading
Start making money with forex trading ๐Ÿค‘๐Ÿค‘๐Ÿค‘๐Ÿค‘The best Broker with tight spread click on the link below to create your account ๐Ÿ“ŒClick Create a Free demo Account ๐Ÿ“ŒPut in your email (click create account) ๐Ÿ“ŒVerify your email( the verification message is sent at your email) ๐Ÿ“ŒCreate password then click Start trading #then click cfds and create a mt5 account #now download mt5 from Google play store #login to your mt5 account and start trading
I read the article, I read the BIP. I am trying to think through this rationally and not jump to any conclusions one way or another. Can you elaborate on one thing for me? It looks, from my reading, that the biggest argument for freezing / burning / whatever the "vulnerable" coins is because if they come to market they will have a negative price impact. Am I interpreting this correctly?
That's one major issue. Other issues are incentivizing procrastinators to upgrade their security, plus protecting users from losing their coins to an attacker.
Matt Corallo's avatar Matt Corallo
I believe you missed that disallowing โ€œQuantum Recoveryโ€ is required in order to allow a majority of coins to be recovered by their rightful owners! We can allow people to spend funds if they can prove that they were built using a seedphrase and they know the seedphrase, but this only works if vulnerable spend paths are prevented!
View quoted note →
Personally, I don't think price action is a valid reason to make these changes. Lots of people and institutions would get rekt if over leveredged and we'd come out stronger, no? From a game theory angle, let's look at me, an economic node. Albeit a small one, but probably somewhat indicative of other vendors around the world producing value and trading it for sats. If the at risk coins are stolen and flood the market then for the period of time while price is suppressed I trade my goods for more sats. I don't see the incentive to switch if it comes down to a hard fork. I think people like me are "sticky" to our current node implementations and individually we may seem insignificant we are definitely here in the world creating value and storing it in sats. Cumulatively we're worth something. So we would still be here, doing lots of small transactions which would generate fees. Lots of small sat transactions are more valuable to miners than a few big ones if everybody is paying the same fee rate. This, plus the incentive to mine the quantum stolen coins for what would likely be juicy fees makes me think that more miners would choose the original (non-frozen) chain.
I'm not saying you are. I'm saying I don't see the incentive for a small economic node, such as myself, to switch to the chain with frozen coins if it comes down to one. Wouldn't a hard fork be almost inevitable? I may be missing something but if some nodes and miners "switch off" old utxos while others don't how could the chain not split? Especially because these frozen utxos will be trying to become active and get into blocks.