Coins have been getting hacked almost every single day in all sorts of ways so you are saying Bitcoin is not immutable already? Deriving private keys that are weakly generated is quite similar to this case, so you can't say it is different to dismiss this.
user error is not a flaw in bitcoin
A user failing to move coins to a new secure address type is an user error, not a flaw in Bitcoin. A user losing his key or throwing them away while having not safe P2PK addresses is also an user error.
I think that the changers of the code "wannabes" are trying to make an exception with Satoshi's coins, and maybe there is no accusation of user error - if the keys happened to have had been vulnerable in the way that they were kept, even though my understanding of the language used seemed to be putting obligations on a wider variety of coins that would get judged based on their 1) existing in a vulnerable status and 2) failure to move the coins (to a more secure format) within a certain period that would end up getting agreed to within the context of whatever software change would go into affect - presumptively (by me) a softfork..
Right now, there seem to be BIP proposals to make it "acceptable" to be fucking around with private keys of other members through changes in the software, then it does not matter if you hold your keys as brain wallets or whatever or you gave the private keys to your best friend or to the grandchild of your best frienc, since if the address type might meet a certain criteria of having coins inside that had not been moved or whatever might be the criteria, then your coins might get frozen (rug pulled) or maybe reallocated into tail distribution or some other dumb shit like that. ..so when you wake up from your coma (or the grandchild of your best friend peels the sticker off of the Casacius coins), there won't be any coins in the place where there used to be coins.
There seem to be faulty assumptions that if someone doesn't move their coins frequently enough (or at all) (and those coins are in supposedly vulnerable addresses) then there are justifications to rewrite the bitcoin software so that those coins can be commandeered (because they have become public property or some dumb shit like that).. .as if that kind of an idea were to make much if any sense under the principles of bitcoin?
I do not like that at all because if we do it for this now, that means we can do it again for other reasons. For me Bitcoin is very different than shitcoins in this way, and actually this method was common in shitcoins that transition from 1 blockchain or another. They say you have a few months or a years to bridge your tokens to the new chain and if you fail to do it you lose it all. Let's not turn Bitcoin into a shitcoin over some coins maybe getting hacked some day in the future...
In current proposals, including BIP 361, it does seem like a slippery slope way of framing the solution.
And this shitcoin aspect does not even include important stuff like Casascius coins or other collectibles that have huge historical values because shitcoins don't even have those. I am against freezing, and reallocating coins of other people into anything. Thank you to all members who will stand their ground on issues like this, who will never sacrifice any Core principles of Bitcoin!
The let the chips fall where they will, does seem like the most integral solution, even if some bad folks might be able to get some "free" coins (referring to whatever coins might be vulnerable... at least more than 1 million coins).
[edited out]
Well one could argue satoshi abandoned bitcoin.
That is a provocative way of phrasing it, and I think that you specifically chose that way of saying it in order to suggest that he gave up property rights, yet you don't even have enough information to conclude that.
Personally I would love to see the old 2009 blocks start to transfer to a new set of bc1q addresses.
Fantasy.
You really live in a fantasy.
Even if Satoshi's coins were to move into some other "acceptable" address type, you really believe that the
control freak whiners are going to give up making dumbass proposals in regards to "why bitcoin's software 'needs to urgently' change?" and other proclamations in regards to how "bitcoin is broken" and needs to be fixed, ASAP.
[edited out]
....... That's why I think once an address is hacked by QC, all of them are bound to be in no time at all.
I don't really agree, even though I have nothing to counter-act.. it seems beyond my pay-grade to counter.. and even beyond by SOMA imaginationings.
BTW if people had listened to me early (say 2021 before the quantum f.u.d. began) when I first mentioned moving the older 2009 and 2010 coins to the back end of the chain or even to 2056 or later all of this would have be resolved without the threat of qc fucking things up.
Just because you had a bad idea earlier does not make your bad idea less bad.
Poll
