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...)

[BlackBoss_]

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.

Bitcoin blockchain is decentralized and it is very adaptive with forking for technical upgrades when necessary. This technical ability of Bitcoin is helpful for its blockchain to survive well against any centralized attacks from Bitcoin mining pools or governments. It's because the Bitcoin community know their benefit and they can response very quickly to any attack in order to keep Bitcoin blockchain secure and safe.

In Bitcoin mining history with some reports, you can see what happened in the past, when Bitcoin mining pools could do 51% attacks but they did not do that.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

We continue to cause FOMO on others about bitcoin because of the way we are making it appear that quantum is a threat to the network, honestly this may trigger a massive action whereby you see investors selling and pulling out of the market because of the fear the quantum may cause on bitcoin network and they wouldn't want to risk their assets when that time comes, so all these people have been saying about me just only cause more confusion and help with nothing in the situation at hand.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

We continue to cause FOMO on others about bitcoin because of the way we are making it appear that quantum is a threat to the network, honestly this may trigger a massive action whereby you see investors selling and pulling out of the market because of the fear the quantum may cause on bitcoin network and they wouldn't want to risk their assets when that time comes, so all these people have been saying about me just only cause more confusion and help with nothing in the situation at hand.

Did you feel you say something contradicts with each other?

If quantum computer is a threat, talking about it, spreading this threat on media will mostly result in panic in the Bitcoin community and on the market. It won't result in any FOMO effect at all, as in my view, when people discuss about Quantum computer, especially Bitcoin outsiders or newbies, they feel very fearful about this threat.

People who want to attack Bitcoin, make people in the market fearful and panic sell will try to use any news they can, including quantum computer development, advance quickly and becomes a bigger threat to Bitcoin blockchain.

[Lucius]

OP, why do you think the country that should be trusted to store Satoshi coins should be the US? Currently, there are very few countries in the world that consider them a reliable partner.

If I had to choose a country to be the one that could hypothetically store these coins, I would choose a neutral country like Switzerland. Besides, it's not like quantum computers will become a threat in a few years (probably in 10+ years), and then the world will have much bigger problems than who will hack Satoshi coins. If Satoshi is alive and has the private keys, it will be the right time to move the coins to a safe address.

[RoseAPT]

OP, why do you think the country that should be trusted to store Satoshi coins should be the US? Currently, there are very few countries in the world that consider them a reliable partner.

If I had to choose a country to be the one that could hypothetically store these coins, I would choose a neutral country like Switzerland. Besides, it's not like quantum computers will become a threat in a few years (probably in 10+ years), and then the world will have much bigger problems than who will hack Satoshi coins. If Satoshi is alive and has the private keys, it will be the right time to move the coins to a safe address.

I am slightly biased since I am American, but that has little to do with it.

The main argument is that it will likely be an American company that develops the first quantum computer capable of deriving private keys from exposed public keys.

This assumption is the basis of my argument. Therefore, if Americans have control of the "tool" or "weapon" to disrupt Bitcoin, then why not proactively use it to keep bitcoin safe?

to reiterate, according to most experts (not me), over 5-6M wallets including Satoshi's will NOT be able to be upgraded automatically. something needs to be done about these wallets or else these companies (or whoever has access to quantum) can access them.

It makes little sense to "give" the bitcoin for the Swiss to safeguard simply on the basis that they have historically been "neutral"

It makes more sense, imo, to allow the nation who actually has the ability to do something.....to actually do something about it

the other point I made in my OP is that between now and then, America still needs to fulfill its promise of being the crypto capital of the world.

Trump declaring that is not nearly enough. we still need more legislation and crypto friendly laws from now until quantum is capable of disrupting the bitcoin network. if America is able to do that, then they "deserve" to hold the 5-6M btc

however, I am not saying this is the best option. I just simply have not heard a better solution to the quantum threat just yet from BTC developers. on the contrary, Laura Shin just interviewed a BTC developer days ago and he said the community doesn't even think quantum is a big threat

[Lucius]

I am slightly biased since I am American, but that has little to do with it.

It's fair of you to admit that, so even though I have a bad opinion of the president and those he is surrounded by (given that I'm from the EU), I think there are a lot of people in the US who may be just now starting to understand that the current policy is not only pointless, but also quite dangerous.

The main argument is that it will likely be an American company that develops the first quantum computer capable of deriving private keys from exposed public keys.

This assumption is the basis of my argument. Therefore, if Americans have control of the "tool" or "weapon" to disrupt Bitcoin, then why not proactively use it to keep bitcoin safe?

to reiterate, according to most experts (not me), over 5-6M wallets including Satoshi's will NOT be able to be upgraded automatically. something needs to be done about these wallets or else these companies (or whoever has access to quantum) can access them.

I got the impression (according to the news I've been reading for the past year) that even the US admits that China is quite ahead of them in terms of AI development, and therefore probably also quantum computers. When you look at the technological development of China in the last 20+ years, it is hard to escape the impression that they will be the ones to overtake the US in this regard.

It makes little sense to "give" the bitcoin for the Swiss to safeguard simply on the basis that they have historically been "neutral"

It makes more sense, imo, to allow the nation who actually has the ability to do something.....to actually do something about it

the other point I made in my OP is that between now and then, America still needs to fulfill its promise of being the crypto capital of the world.

Trump declaring that is not nearly enough. we still need more legislation and crypto friendly laws from now until quantum is capable of disrupting the bitcoin network. if America is able to do that, then they "deserve" to hold the 5-6M btc

however, I am not saying this is the best option. I just simply have not heard a better solution to the quantum threat just yet from BTC developers. on the contrary, Laura Shin just interviewed a BTC developer days ago and he said the community doesn't even think quantum is a big threat

Switzerland was (somewhat) neutral even during the world wars, and finance is their main business (along with chocolate, of course) so I don't see why they wouldn't be a good choice. In that case, at least you wouldn't have to worry about what someone who changes his mind about something five times a day will think of doing with those coins.

As for the promise of "crypto capital of the world", that is the promise of one man, not America.

[Bastketsrus]

OP, why do you think the country that should be trusted to store Satoshi coins should be the US? Currently, there are very few countries in the world that consider them a reliable partner.

If I had to choose a country to be the one that could hypothetically store these coins, I would choose a neutral country like Switzerland. Besides, it's not like quantum computers will become a threat in a few years (probably in 10+ years), and then the world will have much bigger problems than who will hack Satoshi coins. If Satoshi is alive and has the private keys, it will be the right time to move the coins to a safe address.

I am slightly biased since I am American, but that has little to do with it.

The main argument is that it will likely be an American company that develops the first quantum computer capable of deriving private keys from exposed public keys.

This assumption is the basis of my argument. Therefore, if Americans have control of the "tool" or "weapon" to disrupt Bitcoin, then why not proactively use it to keep bitcoin safe?

to reiterate, according to most experts (not me), over 5-6M wallets including Satoshi's will NOT be able to be upgraded automatically. something needs to be done about these wallets or else these companies (or whoever has access to quantum) can access them.

It makes little sense to "give" the bitcoin for the Swiss to safeguard simply on the basis that they have historically been "neutral"

It makes more sense, imo, to allow the nation who actually has the ability to do something.....to actually do something about it

the other point I made in my OP is that between now and then, America still needs to fulfill its promise of being the crypto capital of the world.

Trump declaring that is not nearly enough. we still need more legislation and crypto friendly laws from now until quantum is capable of disrupting the bitcoin network. if America is able to do that, then they "deserve" to hold the 5-6M btc

however, I am not saying this is the best option. I just simply have not heard a better solution to the quantum threat just yet from BTC developers. on the contrary, Laura Shin just interviewed a BTC developer days ago and he said the community doesn't even think quantum is a big threat

I understand your point, but letting one country control those coins goes against Bitcoin’s decentralized nature. Even if the US leads in quantum tech, trust shouldn’t depend on governments. A protocol upgrade or community solution makes more sense, and honestly, the quantum threat still seems far off for now.

[Ambatman]

Lol I really don't understand why you would come up with this
The essence of Bitcoin is to avoid control and reliance one third party and you proposing the same.

but promises to protect the coins and never sell it.

Okay I find this funny
Government promises? Is that the name of a food?
I believe history should have shown that promises don't really stand the test of time especially with politics.

[Easteregg69]

Send it to a burn adress.

Soeh. What if "Satoshi" is still around?

To much conspiracy? Buy XRP. They take it to court.

"usbydefault" means you think like an amarican. You think it's ok to snatch some oil from a hostile country.