pull down to refresh

Phase A: Disallows sending of any funds to quantum-vulnerable addresses, hastening the adoption of P2QRH address types.
Phase B: Renders ECDSA/Schnorr spends invalid, preventing all spending of funds in quantum-vulnerable UTXOs. This is triggered by a well-publicized flag-day roughly five years after activation.
Phase C (optional): Pending further research and demand, a separate BIP proposing a method to allow quantum safe recovery of legacy UTXOs, potentially via ZK proof of possession of a corresponding BIP-39 seed phrase.
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 2h
Hmmm, this really disappoints me. I like Lopp's positions on many things but not this one. I'm no expert on Quantum but I'm pretty skeptical of any foreseeable threat. Especially after reading the paper I wrote about earlier today
reply
This seems like a sensible approach. I think it would be better to spend our "developer consensus capital" on something like this than on more "scaling" infrastructure.
I'm not anti-covenants in principle, but the QC issues are so potentially damaging (although very low probability) that it seems that even quasi-ossification proponents could get behind it....
reply
No, this is just as retarded as covenants, worse in fact ... They go hand in hand
This is an attempt to normalize forced upgrades
Quantum is a hoax
reply
17 sats \ 3 replies \ @Car 15 Jul
I can see that, any links or docs I can read about it
reply
The quantum hoax? just posted a link to a decent video on it
To put it even more simply though that scaling the number of qubits needed to crack a key is fundamentally no different than directly cracking the key... its all just scammer word games to explain why it doesn't work and they need more money for R&D... scammers in Bitcoin then ride the FUD train.
reply
Sorry, but this is your source? An AI-generated video talking about a huge conspiracy theory no one could see through and just kept pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into? I agree that the media often exaggerate things for clicks, but that isn't an argument against technology. I would like to hear an argument that couldn't be used in history against computers, airplanes or AI. These two cited guys are probably basing their calculations on the assumption that things will go in the same direction, but nobody knows if there won't be a breakout in the future (and as always there will be).
reply
It's not a source, intuition is the source. The video articulates some things for people without such intuition.
Orgs poured billions into shitcoins too, all hoaxes. Doesn't require a conspiracy, people are just retarded.
Reality is there's no tangible quantum supremacy to prove the concept, it's just a story that's dragged on for decades without material progress. Handwaving that it could happen in the future is capitulation to this fact, aliens could visit and gift us such magic, but that's not a realistic roadmap.
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 15 Jul
Quantum is a hoax forced upgrades
Good point.
reply
:finger_pointing_up:
what this guy said. with the disclaimer that I can't tell if quantum is a hoax or not, but I trust my instincts.
reply
Quantum is a hoax
xDDDDDDDD Thank good you are not the decision maker. Feel free to have this incorrect opinion, but don't get in the way of us other people fixing the issue instead of pretending it's not a problem.
reply
And who are you exactly? Just because your ego wants to believe it can solve a problem doesn't make the problem real. I'll call out your delusions as I see fit, scammer.
Such a quantum threat would also be a quantum miner, making key-cracking superfluous.
reply
Such a quantum threat would also be a quantum miner, making key-cracking superfluous.
Wtf are you talking about. Quantum threat is only about breaking key-signing of UTXOs.
When it comes to mining, quantum algos improves SHA generation only slightly, nothing game changing.
Anyways its clear from this post that you are clueless, so its an end-of-topic from my side.
reply
clueless
You're fudding a computing hoax going back to the 70's thats still not doing anything, yea you're a real expert
Coherence of the number of qubits needed to crack a signing key is exactly as achievable as brute forcing it, it's a scam, same difficulty with new wording
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @OT 21h
What would it take to change your mind on this?
reply
Which part?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 20h
What would you have to see from a QC to make you think ECDSA keys are vulnerable?
reply
Some consistent demonsterable undeniable quantum supremacy that illuminates the path to scaling the impossible
It seems like Bitcoin may become plagued with omnibus-ism: if we're gonna do a soft fork for quant, we might as well do the great consensus cleanup...
reply
44 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 15 Jul
"Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone." - Satoshi Nakamoto
If true, the corollary is:
"Quantum recovered coins only make everyone else's coins worth less. Think of it as a theft from everyone."
šŸ‘€
reply
hastening the adoption of P2QRH address types
So it's a pressure bip? To pressure which proposal? 360?
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 15 Jul
Yeah, this is going to be whole another conflict on whether to hide this in Taproot trees or to make it very explicit.
reply
Good luck with this fork.
reply
Does it also mean
Buying new wallet hardwares (I use a trezor one)
Creating and storing new seed phrase (my BIP 39 word list cannot unlock coins stored in quantum resistant address)?
reply
Disallows sending of any funds to quantum-vulnerable addresses, hastening the adoption of P2QRH address types
sounds like trusting "quantum" resistant algorithms, very early in the game, with more steps.
Renders ECDSA/Schnorr spends invalid
so, this would mean we don't have as big a bounty on quantum cracking at scale
potentially via ZK proof of possession of a corresponding BIP-39 seed phrase.
clever!
reply
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.