Why?


1. Why would we need to define what a wallet is? We only need to make sure that there is no multi-voting by 1 participant. There are many ways this can be achieved and at this stage, it doesn't really make much sense timewise to get into the nitty gritty without consensus on the idea itself.
2. Developments over the last 5 years have literally made it impossible to access ones bitcoin wealth without some form of KYC. All exchanges now operate. It is not pre 2020s. The times have fundamentally changed. Bitcoin is NOT a privacy coin. The argument could be made that it started as one. It certainly isn't now.




I'm not suggesting no KYC. KYC is essential in a democracy. Bitcoin is priced as it is today, precisely because KYC has spread throughout the system.


Sorry, what? I'm talking about Bitcoin here. Not an altcoin.

??


I'm sorry, but you Satofan44, are most definitely not the arbiter of what the bitcoin community thinks.
You might as well promote BCH or Monero, as you seem to be stuck in the past.

Not at all, it would be from wallets that are verifiably lost thus ownership must therefore have ceased.

Democracy. It is the very foundation of our society, the building blocks of the free world. One wallet, one vote. (Obviously wallets must be linked to a real person, but this is a technical problem which is pretty much solved today). Centralisation wouldn't be possible due to the democratic principle. Also, side note, numbers and codes can most certainly be misused.

There would be a deadline to move coins. Coins that are not moved by that time would be classified as either lost or unwanted. No one loses out.

Where would the hypothecation be?


It's not supposed to be a solution to the quantum era. This is taking advantage of the likely requirement that will occur which is that everyone who currently has bitcoin will be required to move their wallets to quantum resistant wallets or something along those lines. If that is the case, to miss out on the potential for utilising such vast amounts of capital for the collective good seems a wasted opportunity.


As I mentioned above, these would be verifiably lost. There would be a deadline to move coins. Coins that are not moved by that time would be classified as either lost or unwanted. I don't see how this makes BTC any less decentralised. If anything, it does the opposite.

What a strange response. I hope that's not the quality of discussion on this forum.

Really enjoying the perspectives here on where Bitcoin could be heading.

One angle I’ve been thinking about is what might happen after the post-quantum bitcoin 'fork'. Specifically, what happens to all the BTC that’s been untouched for decades?

Idea: what if, at that point, unspent and likely abandoned BTC were redirected into a shared treasury? That treasury could be governed by the Bitcoin community using multisig or delegated voting, and used to fund global public goods or Bitcoin ecosystem development — without ever selling the BTC, just using it as collateral for loans via DeFi.

The idea would aim to:

• Reclaim long-lost BTC at the point of a major existential shift
• Enable democratic treasury management
• Avoid price suppression by not selling the BTC
• Respect private property by only targeting coins clearly abandoned under post-quantum risk

I know it’s pretty radical, but in thinking about Bitcoin's role in the next 10–20 years, especially if we face disruptive tech like quantum computing, I wonder if there’s room for ideas like this.

Would love to hear what others think — especially the objections.

Dear Bitcoin Community,

I’d like to open a discussion around a potential BIP post-quantum protected Bitcoin:

All unspent BTC at the time of a future “quantum fork” would be redirected to a shared treasury address. This treasury would be governed democratically via multisig by the Bitcoin community and used for global public benefit and for the promotion of Bitcoin (the first would achieve the second by default).

Key principles:

• Unused BTC (presumably lost or inactive) would be reclaimed at the fork event.
• Treasury governance would use multisig or delegated voting mechanisms to enable community input.
• Economic neutrality is preserved — no selling of BTC; instead, DeFi-based loans against the holdings would be used to fund projects.
• Respects private property — only affects coins demonstrably abandoned under post-quantum threat conditions.

The intent is to future-proof Bitcoin by ensuring dormant capital isn’t permanently lost and instead serves humanity — while carefully avoiding any inflationary or price-suppressive effects.

I’m aware this is a radical concept and touches deep assumptions around ownership, forks, and governance. I’m sharing here to start an open discussion and see if there is interest in drafting a formal BIP.

Feedback very welcome.

Best regards,
Jason