El Salvador moved their bitcoins

[peter0425]

El Salvador moved their 6.274 bitcoins into 14 different wallets in order to prepare for a possible quantum threat in the future.

They believe that through this, they are reducing the risks of losing all their bitcoin should quantum threats be real in the future and their holdings get attacked. That is the only reason why El Salvador is moving their bitcoins and I believe this should be something we can all learn from El Salvador. Distributing your bitcoins in more than one wallets will save you in the future and El Salvador knows this.

[sheenshane]

Well, there's nothing wrong, and maybe that's the best decision for El Salvador.
If we believe that our wallet isn't secure, it's wise to transfer to the safest wallet we can find.
If they can manage multiple Bitcoin wallets, that's good for them.

They might consider that once the relevant public keys are exposed on-chain, it could pose a risk of a quantum attack, but IMO, it's not an immediate concern.
At least they are prepared for that quantum attack if it happens.

[SPIDERMAN008]

This is definitely a good decision for them. Everyone wants their assets to be safe at all times. The necessary arrangements should be made for this. And the country of El Salvador is known as a Bitcoin haven. They were the first country to accept Bitcoin as a reserve and allow it in their country. They want their Bitcoin to be safe. When they don't feel their wallet is safe, they move their Bitcoin from there and keep it in separate 14-digit wallets. This will protect their Bitcoin.
https://x.com/pete_rizzo_/status/1961609793963266303?t=qBs4O9YE_TzxFBFrF3O-mA&s=19

[DeathAngel]

Quantum computing is a long way off & even if it does come, Core Developers will be able to find a patch to stop it being destructive. El Salvador have made a move to protect their assets though & I salute them for that. Security should never be neglected, they have acted in their best interests.

[Oshosondy]

Even without quantum computing threat, I do not like to hold my coins on a single wallet. I have at least 3 different bitcoin wallets because I think it is better than having just only one. I still have two other wallets that I am using frequently. I think El Salvador are thinking like this also and which is very good. It is better not to leave all your coins on a single wallet, it is a not good at all.

For quantum computing, just do not reuse addresses and your coins will be safe.

[Beparanf]

El Salvador moved their 6.274 bitcoins into 14 different wallets in order to prepare for a possible quantum threat in the future.

They believe that through this, they are reducing the risks of losing all their bitcoin should quantum threats be real in the future and their holdings get attacked. That is the only reason why El Salvador is moving their bitcoins and I believe this should be something we can all learn from El Salvador. Distributing your bitcoins in more than one wallets will save you in the future and El Salvador knows this.

Hacker will start attacking first Satoshi wallet before them if they are afraid of this risk in the future which they will have time to react before their wallet will be hacked.

Although playing safe is a good thing to do but the timing of their Bitcoin movement will surely create some speculation since the current price is already correcting back @100K level.

I hope their statement is true that they are just playing and not slowly unloading Bitcoin.

[Solosanz]

Michael Saylor is actually correct, I didn't thought it could be a marketing for another scam coins who brand themselves as quantum computing. Probably yes, sooner or later the market will flood with quantum tokens because that's what the subject people talk nowadays.

Quantum computing will destruct centralized projects first because they have lower security than Bitcoin.

[Satofan44]

Distributing your bitcoins in more than one wallets will save you in the future and El Salvador knows this.

No, this is not correct. Don't make declarative statements on topics which you do not understand. Distributing to more addresses or wallets does not do anything to safeguard against quantum computers. What is important is whether an address has been reused or not.

Even without quantum computing threat, I do not like to hold my coins on a single wallet. I have at least 3 different bitcoin wallets because I think it is better than having just only one.

It is not. Three averagely secured wallets is worse than one with maximum security.

Hacker will start attacking first Satoshi wallet before them if they are afraid of this risk in the future which they will have time to react before their wallet will be hacked.

You are making an assumption that may not be true. Satohi's addresses are a prime target through which mass panic can be caused which would lead to fast security upgrades. Instead, silently compromising a wallet here and there would be a better approach.

Michael Saylor is actually correct, I didn't thought it could be a marketing for another scam coins who brand themselves as quantum computing. Probably yes, sooner or later the market will flood with quantum tokens because that's what the subject people talk nowadays.

Naive people fall for naive scams, there is nothing that can be done to prevent this from happening.

Quantum computing will destruct centralized projects first because they have lower security than Bitcoin.

Wrong, don't write nonsense in this kind of threads. The threat of QC depends on the algorithms used, not on-chain economic security.

[Easteregg69]

Listen man. You get these repressive individuals with the value that goes with it.

On note!

[LDL]

El Salvador has made the right decision so far, especially since keeping all of their strategic reserve Bitcoin in a government wallet makes it completely risky. For this reason, all of El Salvador's Bitcoin reserves are stored in 14 different wallet addresses, ensuring that El Salvador's Bitcoin remains as secure as possible. In the age of supercomputers, reserving all Bitcoins in one wallet is a risky decision, which is why Salvador's Bitcoin is being held in 14 different wallet addresses, each holding 500 Bitcoins.

[Satofan44]

In the age of supercomputers, reserving all Bitcoins in one wallet is a risky decision, which is why Salvador's Bitcoin is being held in 14 different wallet addresses, each holding 500 Bitcoins.

Wrong. This adds no security in the context that we are talking about, and supercomputers are entirely irrelevant to this.

[Oshosondy]

Even without quantum computing threat, I do not like to hold my coins on a single wallet. I have at least 3 different bitcoin wallets because I think it is better than having just only one.

It is not. Three averagely secured wallets is worse than one with maximum security.

Maybe you will come and teach me. How did you know that my wallets are not secure? Stop quoting someone like me unnecessarily because your post is not at all useful for me. You did not even talk about how to maximize security but you just want to post. I can as well say that someone can have a single wallet and which is not secure.

[Satofan44]

Even without quantum computing threat, I do not like to hold my coins on a single wallet. I have at least 3 different bitcoin wallets because I think it is better than having just only one.

It is not. Three averagely secured wallets is worse than one with maximum security.

Maybe you will come and teach me. How did you know that my wallets are not secure? Stop quoting someone like me unnecessarily because your post is not at all useful for me. You did not even talk about how to maximize security but you just want to post. I can as well say that someone can have a single wallet and which is not secure.

I don't need to know anything about you, learn how to think about subjects instead of responding with emotion. You said you think it is better having 3 wallets than having just only one. What you wrote is categorically false. I showed an example where it is false. Move on and shitpost somewhere else if your brain capacity is limited. You're better off farming in WO.  

[EarnOnVictor]

They believe that through this, they are reducing the risks of losing all their bitcoin should quantum threats be real in the future and their holdings get attacked. That is the only reason why El Salvador is moving their bitcoins and I believe this should be something we can all learn from El Salvador. Distributing your bitcoins in more than one wallets will save you in the future and El Salvador knows this.

The Shor's algorithm is real, so is the threat of quantum computing. However, the large-scale threat is not immediate, and even if large-scale quantum computers start today, everyone will know this. Still, Bitcoin gurus are trying to make the system quantum-resistant for the large-scale threats. So, it is a race between the good and the bad.

Will quantum computing win in the future? Well, time will tell. All I can say is that the resistant codes that will fight it will be in place over time, and the good will not allow the evil to continue exploiting the innocent unchecked. There must be a way, even if it's linking the Bitcoin system to an anti-quantum system protocol. Something must happen.

[batang_bitcoin]

Not bad if that's what they are believing right now. Although it's been said long time ago that quantum computers are going to be a threat to Bitcoin. But, I don't think that it's already on that point and even going to get close by that. So, if El Salvador is having that sense of better security through the movement of it from several, that's fine.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Distributing your bitcoins in more than one wallets will save you in the future and El Salvador knows this.

No, this is not correct. Don't make declarative statements on topics which you do not understand. Distributing to more addresses or wallets does not do anything to safeguard against quantum computers. What is important is whether an address has been reused or not.

My understanding was that the important thing is not to have spent from that address, not to reuse it (such as receiving bitcoins multiple times at that address without spending them). Is that so?

I also see a slightly lower risk in having your holdings in various addresses because the attacker would have to search for them, rather than finding just one. Although the essential thing here is protection against attack.

[simonova]

If quantum computers can hack one wallet, the can hack multiple also. So this action will not protect them.

[Satofan44]

Distributing your bitcoins in more than one wallets will save you in the future and El Salvador knows this.

No, this is not correct. Don't make declarative statements on topics which you do not understand. Distributing to more addresses or wallets does not do anything to safeguard against quantum computers. What is important is whether an address has been reused or not.

My understanding was that the important thing is not to have spent from that address, not to reuse it (such as receiving bitcoins multiple times at that address without spending them). Is that so?

That is right. Do not make any sending transactions from the address in which you want to securely store Bitcoin for the long-term. This will protect you from the first wave of attacks even if they catch us by surprise. Even in this unlikely case where we are caught off-guard, I can easily see miners offering a submit your transaction service where you pay a slightly more fees in order for them to include your transaction in a block without broadcasting it to the network before. This would prevent it from real-time quantum cracking.

However, it is always important to remember that this is all theoretical. Even if there were quantum computers that could break ECDSA keys tomorrow, we don't know how long it would take to derive 1 key much less if there would be any chance to compromise keys in real time (after you submit a transaction and before it is confirmed).

I also see a slightly lower risk in having your holdings in various addresses because the attacker would have to search for them, rather than finding just one. Although the essential thing here is protection against attack.

Let's be honest here. Nobody in this thread is rich enough to be an early target,.   Therefore, we should all saves ourselves the trouble and just focus on a simple setup that maximizes security. One cold storage with maximum security, and one or two spending wallets for frequent transactions.

If quantum computers can hack one wallet, the can hack multiple also. So this action will not protect them.

Shitpost somewhere else.

[crwth]

Would it really be possible? I imagine it's still going to be far from over. A lot of things can be taken care of when it comes to quantum computing but it's in the progress still. What I'm concerned is how fast itr will be with the tools that we have now like AI.

Are there any technical details with how El Salvador is setting up their wallets? Maybe a lot of countries could follow suit.

[BlackBoss_]

El Salvador moved their 6.274 bitcoins into 14 different wallets in order to prepare for a possible quantum threat in the future.

They can do this like their fund restructure action in order to decentralize their bitcoin fund into different wallets. It's a good practice and all Bitcoin owners can do the same without any concern of possible threats from quantum computers in the future.

El Salvador can prepare their bitcoin funds, move it to different wallets before selling their bitcoins in one or some of those wallets. I really don't mind if they do it as it's healthy if bitcoin owners even nations can sell their bitcoins without issues or any barrier that prevent them doing this.

If they can buy bitcoins, they can sell their coins anytime they want.
In addition, the movements of El Salvador are good examples that if you store your bitcoins in non custodial wallets, you have full control on your coins. It's exactly how El Salvador control their bitcoins.