Bitcoin experts debate freezing Satoshi’s 1M...

[legiteum]

"Bitcoin experts debate freezing Satoshi’s 1M bitcoin amid quantum threat"

https://cryptobriefing.com/bitcoin-experts-debate-freezing-satoshi-bitcoin-quantum/

This might be old news for some here, but I think the important thing to point out is not necessarily that people are thinking about doing this, but that... it can be done.

In other words, those same "Bitcoin experts" (in this case, led by two major Bitcoin companies including CoinBase and Binance) can make any sort of change to the Bitcoin network, including adding government controls if they wanted to, or even changing the 21M coin limit or moving the Bitcoin codebase to a more centralized model for performance and scalability reasons (or say to comply with a US law).

[PrivacyG]

So ex Binance CEO and Shit Coin creator proposed that wallets remaining vulnerable to a Quantum threat get frozen if they do not 'migrate'.  Some thing that is as likely as proposing that Craig Wright gets the Bitcoin he claimed is his.

You could also propose that all Bitcoin should be yours unless we give you a pancake, that Bitcoin dies tomorrow or that you take over the Presidency of The United States but that really means absolutely nothing.

What is your point again?

[Ambatman]

"Bitcoin experts debate freezing Satoshi’s 1M bitcoin amid quantum threat"

https://cryptobriefing.com/bitcoin-experts-debate-freezing-satoshi-bitcoin-quantum/

This might be old news for some here, but I think the important thing to point out is not necessarily that people are thinking about doing this, but that... it can be done.

In other words, those same "Bitcoin experts" (in this case, led by two major Bitcoin companies including CoinBase and Binance) can make any sort of change to the Bitcoin network, including adding government controls if they wanted to, or even changing the 21M coin limit or moving the Bitcoin codebase to a more centralized model for performance and scalability reasons (or say to comply with a US law).

Sometimes I really want to believe you just saying all these on purpose
And not actually believe it's true.
You understand what nodes are and why people consider Bitcoin as the closest thing to a decentralised money.
This isn't the first time I'm explaining this so would pretend that you understand how consensus works.
What you stating is what occurs to a centralised system.

[PrivacyG]

Sometimes I really want to believe you just saying all these on purpose
And not actually believe it's true.
You understand what nodes are and why people consider Bitcoin as the closest thing to a decentralised money.
This isn't the first time I'm explaining this so would pretend that you understand how consensus works.
What you stating is what occurs to a centralised system.

Legiteum is delusional and thinks Binance can snap their fingers and model Bitcoin to their liking.  The almost two decade long history of Bitcoin showing this was never the case is not enough for him, obviously!  It is not enough that any kind of significant change was met with a LOT of revolt and pretty much never happened either!

And the best example is BIP110.  It will fail hard no matter how much Preg, as in Pepe and Greg, live in their delusion that it will not.  And no Binance, Coinbase or any other entity can decide the other way around.  Legiteum is right there, in the same Preg boat, the difference is only that it is dickbutt less!

[legiteum]

Sometimes I really want to believe you just saying all these on purpose
And not actually believe it's true.
You understand what nodes are and why people consider Bitcoin as the closest thing to a decentralised money.
This isn't the first time I'm explaining this so would pretend that you understand how consensus works.
What you stating is what occurs to a centralised system.

Are you saying that the Bitcoin codebase cannot be changed? If so, what do you make of this thread here:

Bitcoin Core v31.0 Released

Did you personally approve of this release? If not, who did?

If this change to Bitcoin Core did things you didn't like, then what would you do? And why would it matter?

I understand consensus, but maybe you don't? If the rest of the world (or a majority of it, from a money standpoint) wanted something you didn't want, then that's too bad, you would still have to accept it if you still want to trade your Bitcoin on any serious network. That's how releases like the one above work.

[o48o]

So ex Binance CEO and Shit Coin creator proposed that wallets remaining vulnerable to a Quantum threat get frozen if they do not 'migrate'.  Some thing that is as likely as proposing that Craig Wright gets the Bitcoin he claimed is his.

You could also propose that all Bitcoin should be yours unless we give you a pancake, that Bitcoin dies tomorrow or that you take over the Presidency of The United States but that really means absolutely nothing.

What is your point again?

Maybe even force people to KYC themselves in order to migrate while we are at it.

In fact, i should shut up as someone powerful enough will consider this in the future anyway and it will seem less like a joke then.

While i see Quantum threat being likely, this wouldn't solve it. And what if attacks wouldn't start from satoshi wallet? Because that's a last thing i would touch if i had a power to decrypt the keys. Because any sort of moving out from Satoshi’s 1M bitcoins would immediately crash all cryptos including btc, as everyone would panic and prepare for the crash.

So unless someone isn't planning to short bitcoin with huge leverage and make money that way, smart hacker could make so much more by slow draining from smaller wallets, and it would take some time to anyone figuring out what's happening.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Sometimes I really want to believe you just saying all these on purpose
And not actually believe it's true.
You understand what nodes are and why people consider Bitcoin as the closest thing to a decentralised money.
This isn't the first time I'm explaining this so would pretend that you understand how consensus works.
What you stating is what occurs to a centralised system.

Are you saying that the Bitcoin codebase cannot be changed? If so, what do you make of this thread here:

Bitcoin Core v31.0 Released

Did you personally approve of this release? If not, who did?

If this change to Bitcoin Core did things you didn't like, then what would you do? And why would it matter?

I understand consensus, but maybe you don't? If the rest of the world (or a majority of it, from a money standpoint) wanted something you didn't want, then that's too bad, you would still have to accept it if you still want to trade your Bitcoin on any serious network. That's how releases like the one above work.

By design and functionality the Bitcoin network is immutable and has a hard cap of 21 million of which we are aware of, but the point is that, there is a huge gap between thinking of making a change and actually having the power to do it, because the Bitcoin network on its own acts as an immune system that would reject such an update according to the core value mandate and principles upon which Bitcoin was built.

People or even the government can propose different ideas, but they ultimately can't change the original idea of Bitcoin no matter the threat of quantum computers or not. Bitcoin is immutable and bears roots on a decentralized system not centralized systems where changes can be effected by just clicking update.

[Stalker22]

~
In other words, those same "Bitcoin experts" (in this case, led by two major Bitcoin companies including CoinBase and Binance) can make any sort of change to the Bitcoin network, including adding government controls if they wanted to, or even changing the 21M coin limit or moving the Bitcoin codebase to a more centralized model for performance and scalability reasons (or say to comply with a US law).

You are completely fundamentally misunderstand how Bitcoin actually works.  Coinbase and Binance are just exchanges, they are not the network.  They can debate whatever they want in their corporate boardrooms, but they do not run the show.  Even if something so malicious somehow got into the codebase, it does not mean it would automatically become an integral part of Bitcoin.  Why do you think the actual network of independent node operators and miners would accept such an upgrade?

[stompix]

"Bitcoin experts debate freezing Satoshi’s 1M bitcoin amid quantum threat"

Yeah, and they can debate this till the end of humanity; nobody is stopping anyone from debating stuff; it's a free world.
Also calling a fraud and former convict a"bitcoin expert", especially with his history, is a it of a stretch!

In other words, those same "Bitcoin experts" (in this case, led by two major Bitcoin companies including CoinBase and Binance) can make any sort of change to the Bitcoin network

I do wonder what flow of thought and reasoning has led you to this, especially since we have the opposite being proven, with CZ proposing in the past to do a change to the blockchain to recover stolen funds, so an even worse thing, and he hit a brick wall with his proposal.
Coinbase and Binance can't do shit about it!

Are you saying that the Bitcoin codebase cannot be changed? If so, what do you make of this thread here:
Bitcoin Core v31.0 Released

Oh no! The horror! You know everyone has the option of not using it, right?

[snowpega]

"Bitcoin experts debate freezing Satoshi’s 1M bitcoin amid quantum threat"

https://cryptobriefing.com/bitcoin-experts-debate-freezing-satoshi-bitcoin-quantum/

This might be old news for some here, but I think the important thing to point out is not necessarily that people are thinking about doing this, but that... it can be done.

In other words, those same "Bitcoin experts" (in this case, led by two major Bitcoin companies including CoinBase and Binance) can make any sort of change to the Bitcoin network, including adding government controls if they wanted to, or even changing the 21M coin limit or moving the Bitcoin codebase to a more centralized model for performance and scalability reasons (or say to comply with a US law).

How long have you been in the crypto space? Do you know what a white paper is? If you don't, then find it on a search engine and read some bitcoin white paper, then you will come to know that it is clearly mentioned in the bitcoin white paper that no more bitcoins can be generated or created, and 21M is its fixed supply. One thing that makes Bitcoin a whole different thing from any other system is that it is a decentralized asset that can not be controlled by any other external entity. But yes, if you are using CEX, then the debate is different in that case, haha.

Other than this, any company can lead in the Bitcoin market if they have more and more money, just like "Strategy", but they cannot make any kind of changes in the Bitcoin ecosystem. They are companies, not Bitcoin developers. Getting my point or not? Aside from this, how can they freeze a dormant wallet, which is someone's personal property, in a legal way? This can be dreamed, not can be executed if you ask me, and I can be wrong, so DYOR!

[EFS]

Satoshi should wake up from his cryosleep and move his coins before we freeze them too! That's one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time. Do you really think Bitcoin is going to make the same mistake a shitcoin like Ethereum made? That would instantly kill the product. I wouldn't have expected CZ to support something like this. I always thought he was a smart guy. This nonsense isn't even worth discussing.

[Synchronice]

"Bitcoin experts debate freezing Satoshi’s 1M bitcoin amid quantum threat"

https://cryptobriefing.com/bitcoin-experts-debate-freezing-satoshi-bitcoin-quantum/

This might be old news for some here, but I think the important thing to point out is not necessarily that people are thinking about doing this, but that... it can be done.

In other words, those same "Bitcoin experts" (in this case, led by two major Bitcoin companies including CoinBase and Binance) can make any sort of change to the Bitcoin network, including adding government controls if they wanted to, or even changing the 21M coin limit or moving the Bitcoin codebase to a more centralized model for performance and scalability reasons (or say to comply with a US law).

Why do you think that these people from these two companies can make any sort of change to the Bitcoin network? These people are not the Bitcoin and they don't hold the majority of coins and even if they did, they don't control the majority of nodes and miners.
Honestly, it should be in everyone's best interest to not freeze anyone's wallet because if Satoshi's coins can be frozen, then anyone can be the next target. You know, it's always hard to cross the line but once you do it, then crossing it again becomes much easier.

[aoluain]

In other words, those same "Bitcoin experts" (in this case, led by two major Bitcoin companies including CoinBase and Binance) can make any sort of change to the Bitcoin network, including adding government controls if they wanted to, or even changing the 21M coin limit or moving the Bitcoin codebase to a more centralized model for performance and scalability reasons (or say to comply with a US law).

Really?

I really thought it was the developers on the Bitcoin Core team who made the changes based
on consensus and just two guys from centralised exchanges who decide between them what
they are going to do.

I smell more FUD spread by the OP.

Satoshi should wake up from his cryosleep and move his coins before we freeze them too! That's one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time. Do you really think Bitcoin is going to make the same mistake a shitcoin like Ethereum made? That would instantly kill the product. I wouldn't have expected CZ to support something like this. I always thought he was a smart guy. This nonsense isn't even worth discussing.

Yea, and the talk and debate will be more along the lines of how they "would like" to make
changes.


As regards Satoshi's wallets, why do people think they have a right to do anything with them,
if the wallets succumb to a Quantum threat well that would just be another chapter in Bitcoins
history. Thats my thinking anyway.

[PrivacyG]

Are you saying that the Bitcoin codebase cannot be changed? If so, what do you make of this thread here:

Bitcoin Core v31.0 Released

Did you personally approve of this release? If not, who did?

If this change to Bitcoin Core did things you didn't like, then what would you do? And why would it matter?

Do you even realize how fool you are making of your self, with your own hands?

What does Bitcoin Core have to do with the Bitcoin code?  Bitcoin Core is a SOFTWARE, Bitcoin is the CURRENCY.  If I do not like Bitcoin while the majority does then who the hell am I to decide any thing!  Forks exist, Shit Coins exist, Fiat exists, there are many to choose from!  I could always F off to another Shit Coin, just like you could always F off to another Forum!