Quote from: franky1 on March 20, 2025, 09:44:12 AM

emphasis at same time

No. Read Lopp's blogpost again. The burning would take place at least a year after the addition of "quantum proof" cryptography, as the idea is exactly that the users should migrate. I continue to not like the proposal though as a mandatory option -- only as a nuclear option to threaten attackers preventively, which ideally never should be used.

Quote from: Darker45 on Today at 04:01:19 AM

Would that be how the actual redistribution takes place? Or is it actually just a free-for-all treasure-hunting of vulnerable funds?

That's what Lopp fears when nothing is done via QCs, it's not a "redistribution proposal". A redistribution based on some arbitrary parameter ("treasure hunting") would indeed not make sense, and an "equal amount distributed to all currently active UTXOs" would have probably no effect because sell pressure would decrease the Bitcoin price or market cap, perhaps more than by the (pre-restribution) value of the redistributed coins, due to anticipation/panic/liquidation effects.

Best case is that even Satoshi moves (to an unused P2PKH or similar address) or migrates his coins voluntarily, and thus the burning isn't even necessary, but nobody knows if he's still able to do so. And a return of Satoshi to activity could also make Bitcoin crash, even if it would be bullish because we can probably expect Satoshi to be less prone to sell his coins instantly than an attacker. In the case of the more recent wallets with re-used addresses Lopp mentions, I guess however that more than 95-99% would be migrated or moved.

Perhaps the Bitcoin community could launch a campaign to move coins from re-used addresses, particularly older ones, now that the fees are relatively low? Otherwise when a quantum threat is visible on the horizon, this could make fees explode if everybody's moving/migrating ...

Quote from: ABCbits on March 20, 2025, 07:59:58 AM

Distribution method you mentioned definitely less controversial than other method i've seen. But aside from hard fork, it also add some technical complexity about changed mining reward & which Bitcoin from which vulnerable address/UTXO should be taken.

Of course. However most other proposals also add complexity. Regarding vulnerable addresses however, as I already wrote I would limit them to scripts which expose the private key from the beginning, like P2PK. This would cover probably most old coins affected by this problem.