pull down to refresh

1196 sats \ 7 replies \ @Scoresby 14h
This is referring to Lopp's proposal, it's pretty duplicitous to say "Bitcoin Core wants to" do it, IMO.
These are the five authors listed on the proposal:
Jameson Lopp [Casa] Christian Papathanasiou Quantum Bitcoin Ian Smith CTO at Quantum EVM Joe Ross VP of Product at Quantum Bitcoin Steve Vaile Head of Global Consulting at Quantum Security Defense Pierre-Luc Dallaire-Demers also at Quantum EVM
These are not Core developers.
reply
223 sats \ 5 replies \ @tombennet 11h
It's classic engagement farming. There's a lot of anti-Core sentiment floating around, and it's easy bait to frame challenging topics as "Core wants to…" even when the authors aren’t Core devs.
  • "Now core devs want to freeze coins" - the villains strike again!
  • "Pretext of quantum computing" - obviously a smokescreen for their real agenda: destroying Bitcoin, presumably.
  • "Want to freeze Satoshi coins" - because that’s the endgame. Simple good vs evil, us vs them.
A more honest headline would be "Developers propose freezing unprotected coins as part of long-term quantum resilience strategy", but I doubt that would get as many clicks.
reply
Reposting an article on what Core is doing is not "engagement farming". Labelling people "anti-core" is not an address to the core issue here, it says it right in the proposal "Funds will be frozen if not upgraded " I am not exaggerating https://github.com/jlopp/bips/blob/quantum_migration/bip-post-quantum-migration.mediawiki This is totalitarianism stuff. Satoshi coins should be able to stay untouched for the next 1000 years if they wish we don't need core devs to freeze them.
reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 9h
Well, but calling this proposal "what Core is doing" is wrong.
None of these people are involved with Core to a level that could construe their proposal as a "Bitcoin Core" proposal.
Your title really gets this wrong.
reply
Jameson Lopp is one of the most influencial core devs, he is the author.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 7h
I didn't manually go through the repo, but plugging it into chat this is the result:
It appears that Jameson Lopp (GitHub user jlopp) has not had any direct code commits merged into the official Bitcoin Core repository (bitcoin/bitcoin).
His GitHub profile shows no contributions listed under the bitcoin/bitcoin project. Instead, his work includes forks like statoshi and his own projects such as the Bitcoin Core Config Generator
The only links between jlopp and bitcoin/bitcoin are in issues—like commenting on or reporting bugs—but not in merged pull requests or commits .
Just because he is a popular voice in Bitcoin doesn't mean he speaks for or influences Bitcoin Core. Calling Lopp "one of the most influential core devs" is way offbase.
None of the current Bitcoin Core maintainers were listed as authors on the proposal you reference. Most of the authors actually have backgrounds in Ethereum.
Bitcoin Core != Bitcoin
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 6h
dude you are linking to a BIP, anybody can make a BIP, a BIP has nothing to do with Core
reply
Good catch! What was really gonna stick in my head was Bitcoin core devs!
reply
Original title of the linked article:
Bitcoin Developers Warn 25% of BTC Faces Quantum Threat
reply
The influencers must be having a field day picking whatever side they think will give them the most cloud~~
reply
83 sats \ 11 replies \ @Wumbo 16h
Three-phase transition plan
The developers’ plan involves a three-phase migration.
First, all new bitcoin transactions would be limited to quantum-resistant address types (P2QRH), beginning three years after the adoption of BIP-360.
Second, after another five years, spends from legacy addresses would be invalidated, freezing coins that haven’t migrated.
Finally, users who missed both windows could recover legacy funds using zero-knowledge proofs, though this option remains under research.
And people say Bitcoin has ossified.
reply
Freeze from theft but can recover if they use a zkp
reply
No matter what it's a really bad idea to mess with someone else's property. Who gives core the right to freeze others coins? What are they going to do next, reverse the chain? The point is, anything happens on Bitcoin should be opt-in otherwise it's a violation of property rights. Quantum is not even a real threat compared to this and it's negative effects on Bitcoin. If you think your coins are at risk of quantum you should move your coins not someone else's
reply
Every scenario is expected.
reply
Then what do you suggest they do?
reply
Nothing, let the owner move his coins if they feel like there is a threat. Quantum is not even close to be a real threat to Bitcoin. Practically impossible to guess those private keys. Next they will come for everyone else's coin with a much faker threat.
reply
And if quantum comes and steals their coins it’s all good?
yea. this is not a freeze but essentially a multi step unlocking
reply
Sounds a lot like Ethereum to me
reply
Many such cases
reply
105 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 13h
Jameson Lopp, one of the proposal’s authors, responded that failing to act would leave those funds equally vulnerable to malicious actors.
Check Out The Big Brain On Lopp
Never forget:
reply
246 sats \ 1 reply \ @beameduplol 15h
One hundred percent AGAINST this. Core should not have the authority to randomly freeze coins. No matter whose or what they can be against or used for, it is Bitcoin and thus inherently decentralized, unstoppable, immutable. We are not Ethereum or another altcoin that creates random big policy changes. Until this threat is REAL and is used in practice, there is ZERO NEED for it.
Should they try to make more changes like this, me (and I am sure a lot of users included) will move to Bitcoin Knots or remain on the version. They can fork and create Bitcoin Quantum for all I care.
reply
121 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 11h
The PR isn't from Core
reply
I don't think someone stealing these bitcoin is a threat to any other person's coins.
reply
126 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 14h
I'm much more concerned about the core dev risk than the quantum risk.
reply
I knew this was coming. But didn't know it would be the Core Developers to act right now.
reply
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @3a42879d5f 9h
I knew this was coming. But didn't know it would be the Core Developers to act right now.
It's not the core developers; this post has a dishonest title. The idea comes from a BIP, Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. Anybody can submit them.
reply
Well, we will come back to this when they start pushing it in.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 6h
doesn't matter if they will or won't, your title will still have been wrong here
Btw, in case you think me disagreeing with your title means I agree with the proposal: I don't.
reply
Hey, good point, the people who increased the Op_Return limit are not Core devs neither. You're funny
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 5h
the people who increased the Op_Return limit are not Core devs
did I say that somewhere?