Could USA hypothetically "acquire" Satoshi's BTC using quantum for the SBR?

[RoseAPT]

I know this is unlikely to happen, but just hypothetically asking...

Quantum is a known risk, and there is no consensus on how to solve the problem for Satoshi's wallet + lost + burned BTC (about 5-6M BTC) that cannot be upgraded.

So couldn't there be two ways to approach this:

Idea 1: Bitcoin Core Developers reach consensus to allow USA to "safeguard" these Bitcoins forever. There would need to be coordination between Bitcoin developers and the USA government obviously, and some Congressional approval to guarantee these coins will not be sold.

Justification: USA will hopefully become the cryptal capital of the world in a few years, and the BTC devs might determine that the backing of the USA federal government is not only the safest way to protect these coins, but that USA also "deserves" these coins for their pro-crypto initiatives.

Argument Against: Can't trust governments, not even USA. Goes against the libertarian ethos of BTC and we are putting alot of trust on humans, on law, and on governments, instead of code. There is never a "guarantee" that USA will hold these coins forever.


Idea 2: USA government proactively uses quantum computers to "take possession of" (or steal, or hack, or whatever you want to call it)...but promises to protect the coins and never sell it.

Justification: BTC community would not have to "approve" this technically as the US government would presumably "acquire" the "lost" Bitcoins without permission.

Argument Against: Same argument as above, can't trust the US government to hold the bitcoin. Can't trust people, only code. And no guarantee that the US will develop quantum before any other country. No guarantee that a private US company would allow the US government to use quantum tech to hack BTC. And non-US Bitcoin holders may no longer support BTC if this happens.


In summary, there are 2 ways the US government can enter the equation when it comes to quantum risk. They can "acquire" the coins voluntarily or involuntarily. But I think both methods can be done with the best of intentions. It just weakens the narrative of BTC being 21M fixed supply when we magically revive dead coins in a post quantum world.

However, there really aren't many ideas that addresse what to do with these 5-6M BTC at the moment. And sadly, I personally think it is one logical (not saying good) way the US government can acquire BTC for its SBR in a "budget neutral" way.

Thoughts?

[Bastketsrus]

I know this is unlikely to happen, but just hypothetically asking...

Quantum is a known risk, and there is no consensus on how to solve the problem for Satoshi's wallet + lost + burned BTC (about 5-6M BTC) that cannot be upgraded.

So couldn't there be two ways to approach this:

Idea 1: Bitcoin Core Developers reach consensus to allow USA to "safeguard" these Bitcoins forever. There would need to be coordination between Bitcoin developers and the USA government obviously, and some Congressional approval to guarantee these coins will not be sold.

Justification: USA will hopefully become the cryptal capital of the world in a few years, and the BTC devs might determine that the backing of the USA federal government is not only the safest way to protect these coins, but that USA also "deserves" these coins for their pro-crypto initiatives.

Argument Against: Can't trust governments, not even USA. Goes against the libertarian ethos of BTC and we are putting alot of trust on humans, on law, and on governments, instead of code. There is never a "guarantee" that USA will hold these coins forever.


Idea 2: USA government proactively uses quantum computers to "take possession of" (or steal, or hack, or whatever you want to call it)...but promises to protect the coins and never sell it.

Justification: BTC community would not have to "approve" this technically as the US government would presumably "acquire" the "lost" Bitcoins without permission.

Argument Against: Same argument as above, can't trust the US government to hold the bitcoin. Can't trust people, only code. And no guarantee that the US will develop quantum before any other country. No guarantee that a private US company would allow the US government to use quantum tech to hack BTC. And non-US Bitcoin holders may no longer support BTC if this happens.


In summary, there are 2 ways the US government can enter the equation when it comes to quantum risk. They can "acquire" the coins voluntarily or involuntarily. But I think both methods can be done with the best of intentions. It just weakens the narrative of BTC being 21M fixed supply when we magically revive dead coins in a post quantum world.

However, there really aren't many ideas that addresse what to do with these 5-6M BTC at the moment. And sadly, I personally think it is one logical (not saying good) way the US government can acquire BTC for its SBR in a "budget neutral" way.

Thoughts?

I don’t think either option really fits Bitcoin’s philosophy. The whole idea is to remove trust from governments and humans, so letting any country control those coins would set a bad precedent. Even with good intentions, people wouldn’t trust that the coins stay untouched forever. If quantum ever becomes a real issue, Bitcoin will more likely upgrade its cryptography instead of trying to revive or reassign lost coins, because the system works best when rules come from code, not authority.

[RoseAPT]

I know this is unlikely to happen, but just hypothetically asking...

Quantum is a known risk, and there is no consensus on how to solve the problem for Satoshi's wallet + lost + burned BTC (about 5-6M BTC) that cannot be upgraded.

So couldn't there be two ways to approach this:

Idea 1: Bitcoin Core Developers reach consensus to allow USA to "safeguard" these Bitcoins forever. There would need to be coordination between Bitcoin developers and the USA government obviously, and some Congressional approval to guarantee these coins will not be sold.

Justification: USA will hopefully become the cryptal capital of the world in a few years, and the BTC devs might determine that the backing of the USA federal government is not only the safest way to protect these coins, but that USA also "deserves" these coins for their pro-crypto initiatives.

Argument Against: Can't trust governments, not even USA. Goes against the libertarian ethos of BTC and we are putting alot of trust on humans, on law, and on governments, instead of code. There is never a "guarantee" that USA will hold these coins forever.


Idea 2: USA government proactively uses quantum computers to "take possession of" (or steal, or hack, or whatever you want to call it)...but promises to protect the coins and never sell it.

Justification: BTC community would not have to "approve" this technically as the US government would presumably "acquire" the "lost" Bitcoins without permission.

Argument Against: Same argument as above, can't trust the US government to hold the bitcoin. Can't trust people, only code. And no guarantee that the US will develop quantum before any other country. No guarantee that a private US company would allow the US government to use quantum tech to hack BTC. And non-US Bitcoin holders may no longer support BTC if this happens.


In summary, there are 2 ways the US government can enter the equation when it comes to quantum risk. They can "acquire" the coins voluntarily or involuntarily. But I think both methods can be done with the best of intentions. It just weakens the narrative of BTC being 21M fixed supply when we magically revive dead coins in a post quantum world.

However, there really aren't many ideas that addresse what to do with these 5-6M BTC at the moment. And sadly, I personally think it is one logical (not saying good) way the US government can acquire BTC for its SBR in a "budget neutral" way.

Thoughts?

I don’t think either option really fits Bitcoin’s philosophy. The whole idea is to remove trust from governments and humans, so letting any country control those coins would set a bad precedent. Even with good intentions, people wouldn’t trust that the coins stay untouched forever. If quantum ever becomes a real issue, Bitcoin will more likely upgrade its cryptography instead of trying to revive or reassign lost coins, because the system works best when rules come from code, not authority.

It is not possible to upgrade all wallets. The owner must actively move the btc and sign a transaction.

That is the point of the post. Something has to be done about satoshi’s wallet, and 5m other coins that are lost.

[TedMosby]

If that happens, I think there could be a quantum computer ”war” between major countries. As of today, the biggest player in this new sector is the USA. But I’m sure countries like China, Russia, and others already see it as a serious threat.

It’s not only about the Bitcoin network. It could affect much more than that, like hacking other countries’ defense systems. At that point, it would feel like open warfare. The world might eventually need an  some kind of global quantum computing treaty 

[philipma1957]

I know this is unlikely to happen, but just hypothetically asking...

Quantum is a known risk, and there is no consensus on how to solve the problem for Satoshi's wallet + lost + burned BTC (about 5-6M BTC) that cannot be upgraded.

So couldn't there be two ways to approach this:

Idea 1: Bitcoin Core Developers reach consensus to allow USA to "safeguard" these Bitcoins forever. There would need to be coordination between Bitcoin developers and the USA government obviously, and some Congressional approval to guarantee these coins will not be sold.

Justification: USA will hopefully become the cryptal capital of the world in a few years, and the BTC devs might determine that the backing of the USA federal government is not only the safest way to protect these coins, but that USA also "deserves" these coins for their pro-crypto initiatives.

Argument Against: Can't trust governments, not even USA. Goes against the libertarian ethos of BTC and we are putting alot of trust on humans, on law, and on governments, instead of code. There is never a "guarantee" that USA will hold these coins forever.


Idea 2: USA government proactively uses quantum computers to "take possession of" (or steal, or hack, or whatever you want to call it)...but promises to protect the coins and never sell it.

Justification: BTC community would not have to "approve" this technically as the US government would presumably "acquire" the "lost" Bitcoins without permission.

Argument Against: Same argument as above, can't trust the US government to hold the bitcoin. Can't trust people, only code. And no guarantee that the US will develop quantum before any other country. No guarantee that a private US company would allow the US government to use quantum tech to hack BTC. And non-US Bitcoin holders may no longer support BTC if this happens.


In summary, there are 2 ways the US government can enter the equation when it comes to quantum risk. They can "acquire" the coins voluntarily or involuntarily. But I think both methods can be done with the best of intentions. It just weakens the narrative of BTC being 21M fixed supply when we magically revive dead coins in a post quantum world.

However, there really aren't many ideas that addresse what to do with these 5-6M BTC at the moment. And sadly, I personally think it is one logical (not saying good) way the US government can acquire BTC for its SBR in a "budget neutral" way.

Thoughts?

No. But they could tell the developers write a btc stale wallet fork or we will arrest all of you.

So any coin frozen for x years in a wallet goes back into block rewards.

[pooya87]

No.

It's a very simple matter. No government can ever control Bitcoin, if they can then bitcoin would die and cease to exist. Because of that they cannot prevent the bitcoin network from forking to a quantum resistant protocol preventing such a theft long before it materializes.

[bitbollo]

It would be a non-sense to "control" and "change" now the rules of consensus that have been used.
Only with an hard fork.... I doubt people would be happy to use the forked version... at the end would be just another "useless fork"...

Moreover, excluding the real utility of this idea (decentralization? safety of the net?...) who would trust a network that has been "taken" in control by a government? even if partially... if they take control of some coins arbitrarly who will trust the whole concept?
what could limit another nation to counter attack Satoshi's Btc or others?
Real worst scenario...what it could be limit to add the same also to other coins (imagine if linked to "terrorist" and so on...)