It`s in order to protect the kids.
What a bunch of bullshit.
Digesting and mulling over BIP, 361. Also the sooner I can just accept the fact that this is part of Bitcoin's fate, that it's going to be a place of war amongst the tribes, the sooner I'll be less jibbity.
You really think that bitcoin consensus is going to gravitate towards freezing coins? I hope "we" are smarter than that.
I heard that even though Jameson Lopp had assisted in authoring BIP 361, he said something like "I don't like the terms of the BIP, but at least it opens up the discussion," which seems a bit of a problematic way of rationalizing the involving of oneself in the putting on the table a BIP like that.
Digesting and mulling over BIP, 361. Also the sooner I can just accept the fact that this is part of Bitcoin's fate, that it's going to be a place of war amongst the tribes, the sooner I'll be less jibbity.
The war is inevitable but same thing happened with Knots. What side are you leaning to? Hopefully not the side that wants to freeze coins.
I will agree that "the war" is inevitable, but not the acceptance (or actual passage) of such a dumb idea.
It seems to me that if such a dumb idea were to pass, then there would likely also end up being some kind of a hardfork outcome - since even if it were to get put into a softfork, there would likely be a cohesive enough contingent of bitcoiners who would both opt out of such version of bitcoin and to set forth a hardfork that users could end up choosing to support (which would be the version of bitcoin that preserves property rights and does not freeze coins).
Digesting and mulling over BIP, 361. Also the sooner I can just accept the fact that this is part of Bitcoin's fate, that it's going to be a place of war amongst the tribes, the sooner I'll be less jibbity.
Personally I am diametrically opposed to even allowing a discussion about stealing coins, it literally breaks the bitcoin contract.
Something seems correct about the sentiment of this comment, even though "not even allowing a discussion" seems "a bit much."
The only exception being I would not be opposed to forking satoshi's coins to either the tail end of emission or black-holed into the genesis block.
That seems like an exception that swallows the rule... and so it seems problematic to be doing anything with Satoshi's coins that does not come from either Satoshi himself or anyone who might have had gotten access to Satoshi's keys. The owner of the keys would be the only person (or entity or bot) that would have a right to determine what to do with the coins.
There could be some accusations of "theft" if there are claims to coins, yet it might be problematic for anyone who does not have the actual keys to proclaim that the coins are his, yet I suppose that a person could show that he had the earlier keys that were prior to the point in time that the coins were moved to new addresses that would presumptively be addresses controlled by the stealer of the coins. So then the evidence would be "I had the keys" prior to them being moved by the thief.
Even though quantum computing may well be a wee bit of "pie in the sky," I would imagine that there are a lot of folks who are already employing various recently discovered/invented/introduced AI tools to engage in a variety of investigations of ways to exploit various vulnerabilities that exist in various crypto space matters, and bitcoin's private keys are not any kind of an easy target, except perhaps from folks who exposed some or all of their private keys in ways that became accessible to AI systems.
Those coins were only mined to bootstrap the network when launched and I believe were never intended to be spent.
Surely that sounds like a slippery slope rationale, in which guys like me might say "so fucking what?" hahahahahahahaa
#nohomoOf course this is only because Len is dead and no-one has satoshi's keys.
You are not the ONLY one who thinks that Satoshi is dead and/or that Len Sasserman was Satoshi... and whether or not anyone currently has Satoshi's keys seems mostly irrelevant.
Another thing. I don't even think "we" know whether satoshi had made only a few keys or if he might have had made thousands or 10s of thousands of keys (in the event that he had separate keys for every block that he mined - that was a time before address reuse was frowned upon).
Isn't it my choice if I want to keep Bitcoin in insecure way? I thought it was about having this choice..
Since afaik one of the main points is to forbid QC from stealing satoshi's stash, I doubt that such a choice exists (I dare you get an official answer from satoshi about his coins!).
If Satoshi is not able to protect his coins, then fuck Satoshi.
(again, #nohomo)Let his coins be stolen by the first person or entity that is capable of accomplishing such...and then let's see what happens from there. What is s/he/it going to do with such coins once stolen from Satoshi? Spend them at a local pub?
Just a thought...
If you zoom out far enough to see this cycle as a head and shoulders pattern that isn't finished yet, the left shoulder started on 3/11/24 and ended on 11/3/24. That is roughly 8 months of sideways. If you look at the right shoulder that started on 2/10/25, that gives you an end date of roughly 10/2/25. This also coincides with around the time that the four year cycle would estimate a bottom. If you're a fractals guy, things are also starting to look very familiar to May of 2022. Everything pointing to sideways or down in my opinion. I'd love to be wrong. In 6 more months we'll find out.
Good luck with your faulty thinking.
You are likely going to need it...
but hey, you already are a pretty big fuck up, so there is that angle, too.
(again, #nohomo) 
Isn't it my choice if I want to keep Bitcoin in insecure way? I thought it was about having this choice..
Since afaik one of the main points is to forbid QC from stealing satoshi's stash, I doubt that such a choice exists (I dare you get an official answer from satoshi about his coins!).
Freezing the coins is taking away the choice in every case, it does not matter if you still hold the keys or not. I could never agree to change Bitcoin this way,
say no to freezing! Someone should make a campaign.
Yeah. "We" will call it the "Just Say No" campaign. That would be original, no?
Poll
