pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @aliceandthewonderland 24 Dec \ parent \ on: Why QC Can't Kill BTC Matt Corallo bitcoin
I wasn’t referring to mining subsidies; I was actually talking about the potential centralization of the mining industry with advanced enough QC.
Yep, hope so.
What about Bitcoin mining field? If QC advances far enough, wouldn't it become profitable to mine Bitcoin block using QC? Grover's Algorithm could significantly reduce the computational effort required to find the hash. This would mean only those who can afford quantum computers would be able to mine block, potentially leading to even greater centralization.
advanced quantum computers might theoretically be able to derive private keys from public keys in the mempool before miners confirm transactions, (still wondering if it is even possible), the real question is: would it be worth it? The energy costs would be enormous, making it economically unfeasible. I believe there's an important distinction between what's technically possible and what's likely to actually happen in practice.
for a public one, must be bigger than 3M-5M sats at least.
It must be a hassle for node operators to rebalance channel liquidity when large amounts are constantly being moved, tho
but in practice you are limited to the liquidity of the nodes and channels.
Yeah, I get that, but is sending more than 0.5 BTC actually practical?
Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to mess with the Bitcoin blockchain like this? BRC-20 and whatever BRC-721 wannabe exist have no business being on Bitcoin. It’s a blockchain built for sound money, not crappy token experiments.
"free market" will determine the best use case
As Bitcoin is unstoppable, so is BRC at this moment. The free market will decide.
If your browser do not show this alert when you visit the shithole reddit, it means you are using a shit browser.
what's up with reddit? I think r/Bitcoin is a treasure trove of interesting Bitcoin news.
And here is a Saylor tweet from the same year 2013
He used to be like that.. but not anymore
I believe music touches our souls by combining mathematical patterns with raw emotion in a universal language that transcends words.
Ok, I get that BIP119 can help secure self-custody in the long run.
But if we go down this route, isn’t there a risk of ending up with a similar split as the block size wars, where some nodes embrace the soft fork while others refuse, potentially leading to another contentious chain split?
While BCH’s existence may show that not everyone agreed with SegWit, it doesn’t deny the fact that SegWit was indeed addressing root technical issues like transaction malleability, block capacity, that were broadly recognized. BIP119’s aims may sound beneficial, but it’s not clear they’re solving a similarly core problem rather than introducing new complexity, without widespread agreement on its necessity.
How would you compare the universally recognized benefits of SegWit to proposal like BIP119, which is primarily tailored to niche interests and lacks the same consensus on its necessity? Isn’t there a substantive difference between solutions addressing core infrastructural challenges and changes that cater to specific industry stakeholders without a widely acknowledged need?