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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
If such a threat were to exist (it doesn't), that would be the incentive to move coins... not fear of lockout.
No one is forced to accept stolen coins, Lopp's argument is disingenuous. If you receive abandoned coins you suspect were stolen by QC you can burn them.
economic disruption
This is the not-so-quiet part of the proposal, fear of dilution by reintroducing abandoned coins onto the market. Lopp undermines his own argument, they're not afraid people will be forced to accept coins, but that they will happily accept them.
This is not a technical BIP, it's a vanity one trying to impose a view on the market. The very market fear driving it is also what undermines it, you can't fight the market. Someone stealing a satoshi amount of coins will also buy the hashpower to confirm the tx.
secure the value of the UTXO set
A functional QC would effectively be a winner-take-all coins, candidates in the running to have it already have access to a material number of coins (Google, Microsoft have countless passwords emails 2FA to custodial platforms and password managers).
A QC could also sign for any software distribution, enabling untold backdoors into systems. There's no change to Bitcoin that can protect Bitcoin from a (fake) QC threat because Bitcoin is not the only link in the chain.
I'm a simple man, I see someone crack satoshis wallet and starts dumping, I back up the truck and start buying! I'd love a Satoshi era tied UTXO to add to my collection
This post might be more relevant and engaging in the~newsterritory.