Thread

Calling for a quantum fork TODAY would clearly be contentious. Everything I'm proposing is PLANNING so that we have well thought out options to choose from in the future IF quantum computing progresses to the point of being a real concern.

I think you'll find burning / seizing old coins to be a Rubicon most bitcoiners are unwilling to cross.

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.

I'm on team human.

I've already started stacking litecoin

That's fine, but Bitcoin is not a democracy in which human votes are counted.

oh OK, who's running all the nodes? ETF's? BTC Treasury companies?

Whoever wants to.

“Let’s say we are bad actors, what are you going to do to stop us?” Says the Eth Laser Eye shitcoiner. Go run Citrea on ETH, or ₿ Cash. Shill’s gonna shill. Slopp would make Core a private business if he could. We need some better implementations. This ain’t gonna cut it.

people already think youre a sell out. stop trying to prove them right. bitcoin is for all people. not just billionaires.

Actually they have been arguing to make core into a private company

I look forward to seeing your "better implementations." I suggest you get to work building them instead of crying on social media.

Bitcoin is a democracy. Nodes are votes. You're just a shitcoiner

you've already lost 1/4 of the market share to dasjr and that guy's fuckin nuts

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.

Brainwashed puritan pleb market share, sure. In terms of actual economic market share, notsomuch.

Stay humble and Stack Sats

you'll fork off before I "leave"

"let's do a hardfork cause Saylor wants to" "you're free to leave" dude we won't have to leave. all the suitcoiners will leave and we plebs can just run core v29 forever lol

I wonder why Bitcoin has so little uptake.

None of these are hard forks. Yes, you're free to continue running whatever node software you wish.

Saylor is no economic entity, he produces nothing and renders no services. My barber around the corner has more economic activity than Saylor.

rofl welcome brethren

The evil shitcoiner and manipulator Slopp strucks again. Plebs who consider Bitcoin Freedom Money and not a spam dump are brainwashed? Thats not true of course, they are not brainwashed. As for economic market share, Saylor is not in favor of spam and jpegs on Bitcoin.

how tf will you confiscate coins without a hard fork

Disallowing spending from specific script types is a restriction of the existing rule set, which is a soft fork. Read my BIP for details.

GitHub

bips/bip-post-quantum-migration.mediawiki at quantum_migration · jlopp/bips

Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Contribute to jlopp/bips development by creating an account on GitHub.

God has no sons 🌍 The concept of God is summarized in the Quran as: 📖 { “Say, He is God, the One. God, the Absolute. He does not give birth, nor was He born, and there is nothing like Him.”} (Quran 112:1-4) 📚

Turning Bitcoin into a wef cbdc just to protect your dickbutt nfts?

Your nfts will be worthless. Nobody wants your garbage on the chain, you're worse than core. Your node client is a direct attack on Bitcoin. Fortunately it makes up less than 1% of the network.

so when you said people would buy my bitcoin if I didn't send it to a new quantum resistant address, that was just a figure of speech? cause the coins would be burned forever right?

No, I thought it was blindingly obvious that if you intend to sell your coins in order to protest a mandatory migration, you'd need to send them to an exchange BEFORE the migration deadline.

who's selling? we can keep using our coins after you split off, they just wont be compatible.

Made some fan art for BIP 6102

So what I am hearing is. Wall Street determines the will of the Bitcoin network? I thought become meant freedom and free from coercion.

That's one major issue. Other issues are incentivizing procrastinators to upgrade their security, plus protecting users from losing their coins to an attacker.

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.

For the 99th time, no one is proposing a hard fork.

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.

The chain only splits if a nontrivial amount of hashrate chooses to resist the soft fork.

I guess it just seems intuitive to me that they would. My intuition hasn't always been right I can admit that, but if the circulating supply doubles or even more then the new coins will be bleeding btc to fees and everybody would want to mine those blocks.