pull down to refresh

Saylor on the quantum threat
I'm conflicted on his take
On the one side, quantum is a complete hoax and has been debunked by world-renowed computer science professors, there's no room for debate. Everyone fearing it should be called out has having been scammed, a scammer, retarded, or all of the above.
I'm pretty sure Saylor, as a top spook out of Washington, knows this.
But on the other hand, his position at the pulpit might warrant "It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled" and spread these platitudes about upgrading/freezing coins until the concern trolls exhaust themselves or are beaten down by reality.
My issue with the latter is it gives upgradooors a lifeline to portray Bitcoin as malleable by baseless FUD, which is imo a worse overhang than quantum itself.
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @Taj OP 1h
Great reply JS knew you'd be thinking on multi levels
reply
I don't have any issues with "quantum hardening", but what's this about frozen coins?
I don't think it's settled at all what to do with coins who don't upgrade to quantum resistant addresses.
reply
"quantum hardening"
Since there is no Quantum, hardening is just using new - and likely backdoored -encryption standards being pushed by the IC via NIST.
what's this about frozen coins
Lopp's BIP that would do exactly that seems to have overwhelming support on the Core repo... where dissenters are getting banned or their posts ghost edited.
reply