Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on November 20, 2021, 02:17:25 PM

Quote from: ETFbitcoin on November 20, 2021, 09:49:40 AM

From user side, they need to move their coin to "secure address". But from technical side, there are few dilemma such as,
1. Should we freeze UTXO with vulnerable cryptography or let it stolen?
2. Should node/miner reject transaction where the output contain "old address" after "secure address" is available?

Shouldn't we come into an agreement now instead in a stressful period when everybody will scream for the sake of their money? I mean, do we have to wait until it becomes feasible enough to break the secp256k1 or rather gather as nice, calm Smurfs and vote for our decisions?

Past discussion (at least on this forum) shows it's difficult to reach agreement, few example
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191219.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5322061.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5355246.0

Quote from: mynonce on November 20, 2021, 06:57:11 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on November 20, 2021, 02:17:25 PM

Shouldn't we come into an agreement now instead in a stressful period when everybody will scream for the sake of their money? I mean, do we have to wait until it becomes feasible enough to break the secp256k1 or rather gather as nice, calm Smurfs and vote for our decisions?

It would be intersting to create a second Bitcoin testnet and implement these ''secure addresses'' just to test it. So we would have experience and were able to switch faster if needed.

But i doubt it'll happen anytime soon since quantum computing isn't big concern for now.