pull down to refresh

Why QC Can't Kill BTC Matt Corallofountain.fm/episode/7jDS1DYZuyYfgaFZlLCs
2040 sats \ 7 comments \ @OT 18h bitcoin
The first part of this was a great summary if where we're at with the distant quantum computer threat.
I had a knee jerk reaction when at around 26:00. Not sure if it was kinda an off the cuff comment or if he's absolutely serious. He said that if a QC was able to steal all of the early coins (mainly Satoshis + lost coins) that we would have to roll back the chain. Actually, I was more surprised that Marty didn't pull him up on it and ask for more clarification.
Roll back the chain? Like Ethereum?
The other would be that the QC gets ~1m bitcoin and could dump on the market or just have stollen their way to be the largest holder.
I think both hypothetical outcomes in this situation are bad, but I'd like to hear more discussion over it.
Which one is worse?
write
preview
related posts
151 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheBTCManual 10h
Lol when I heard chamath shilling QC cooking Bitcoin I knew we were safe
The satoshi coins serve as a warning signal/honey pot for QC, if it ever moves we know the threat is serious that's its purpose at this point. Do I think QC users would go for BTC first? No I think theres a lot of other networks to go for, both fiat and shitcoins
Also what happens when those coins move? how much liquidity can you access by dumping them before the market reacts knowing you'd sell at any price? I don't think there should be a roll back, if someone can crack the scheme and get the funds and dump that million coins and we go down to a uber low price for a while who cares?
The supply will eventually be absorbed moved to a better address scheme and we move on. You had 15-20 years to move to another address scheme so clearly you not too bothered with those coins or its lost.
the hard cap remains so i'm a no for snapshot and fork
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT OP 9h
I think this is the better option in the end. There could be an 80-90% drop with some hodlers thinking the Patoshi coins moving is a deal breaker. The market would eventually recover as you said, the supply never changed.
Rolling back the chain would cause a fork IMO. It would also be a deal breaker for some and it would imply that Bitcoin was not as decentralized as everyone thought. The market might not recover from a roll back.
reply
47 sats \ 3 replies \ @aliceandthewonderland 14h
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.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 11h
Looking forward to getting my quantum Bitaxe.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT OP 14h
Most of the supply has been mined already (>90%). So this situation wouldn't be as catastrophic IMO, unless if course you're a large asic miner!
The community would have some time to react and figure out how to deal with this.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @aliceandthewonderland 14h
Most of the supply has been mined already (>90%).
I wasn’t referring to mining subsidies; I was actually talking about the potential centralization of the mining industry with advanced enough QC.
The community would have some time to react and figure out how to deal with this.
Yep, hope so.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @af1f6f3e17 7h
Better be safe than sorry, I don't feel like "nothing to worry about" when we have about 10 years to solve this problem. If you relax the lion gets you.
reply