pull down to refresh
2206 sats \ 7 replies \ @Scoresby 17 Jul
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:
These are not Core developers.
reply
233 sats \ 5 replies \ @tombennet 17 Jul
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
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @piecoverBTC OP 17 Jul
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
190 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 17 Jul
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
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @piecoverBTC OP 17 Jul
Jameson Lopp is one of the most influencial core devs, he is the author.
reply
260 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 17 Jul
I didn't manually go through the repo, but plugging it into chat this is the result:
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
reply on another page
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 17 Jul
dude you are linking to a BIP, anybody can make a BIP, a BIP has nothing to do with Core
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 17 Jul
Good catch! What was really gonna stick in my head was Bitcoin core devs!
reply
146 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 17 Jul
The influencers must be having a field day picking whatever side they think will give them the most cloud~~
reply
140 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 17 Jul
Original title of the linked article:
reply
83 sats \ 11 replies \ @Wumbo 17 Jul
And people say Bitcoin has ossified.
reply
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @BlokchainB 17 Jul
Freeze from theft but can recover if they use a zkp
reply
143 sats \ 6 replies \ @piecoverBTC OP 17 Jul
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
55 sats \ 0 replies \ @d680ecaa8e 17 Jul
Every scenario is expected.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @BlokchainB 17 Jul
Then what do you suggest they do?
reply
147 sats \ 3 replies \ @piecoverBTC OP 17 Jul
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
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @BlokchainB 17 Jul
And if quantum comes and steals their coins it’s all good?
view all 2 replies
48 sats \ 2 replies \ @byzantine 17 Jul
yea. this is not a freeze but essentially a multi step unlocking
reply
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @piecoverBTC OP 17 Jul
Sounds a lot like Ethereum to me
reply
47 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 17 Jul
Many such cases
reply
246 sats \ 1 reply \ @beameduplol 17 Jul
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
261 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 17 Jul
The PR isn't from Core
reply
105 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 17 Jul
Check Out The Big Brain On Lopp
Never forget:
reply
126 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 17 Jul
I'm much more concerned about the core dev risk than the quantum risk.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @BallLightning 17 Jul
I don't think someone stealing these bitcoin is a threat to any other person's coins.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @hasherstacker 17 Jul
I knew this was coming. But didn't know it would be the Core Developers to act right now.
reply
120 sats \ 5 replies \ @3a42879d5f 17 Jul
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
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @piecoverBTC OP 17 Jul
Well, we will come back to this when they start pushing it in.
reply
120 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 17 Jul
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
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @piecoverBTC OP 17 Jul
Hey, good point, the people who increased the Op_Return limit are not Core devs neither. You're funny
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 17 Jul
did I say that somewhere?
view all 1 replies