Quote from: Pmalek on July 23, 2025, 07:04:51 AM

Quote from: ABCbits on July 22, 2025, 10:31:17 AM

I agree with your statement. As for scenario of forcing change, it reminds me of when ETH rollback DAO hack through hard-coded logic. While majority of ETH community support the rollback, i certainly hope the opposite would happen in this scenario.

There is a significant difference. After the DAO hack, a rollback was proposed by those who lost money to it. It was the Ethereum Foundation and people close to the project. They wanted a redo and to go back to a post where they don't lose their money. But no hack or brute force has happened here from quantum computers. There is no fake governance structure attempting to recover what they have lost unless there is a reason to believe that J. Lopp and the other authors of the BIP are in fact satoshi, wanting to regain access to bitcoin whose keys they lost.

It is the closest comparison in terms of governance and forcing a change though. It is important to know that a rollback of individual addresses is not possible in Bitcoin so there will never be something similar like the DAO situation in terms of the details. However, in terms of governance it is the closest thing. The DAO situation was quite controversial even if it had majority support that was carefully engineered by its leader and other key people with financial interests. Here I would also like to now that the ability to rollback individual addresses is a bug and not a feature as altcoin proponents believe. This creates a very bad precedent for creating collusive quick forks in order to bail out individuals as it was already the case. With Bitcoin a hard fork would undo everything that has happened after the block to which we are rolling back and thus such an action would have a lot more extensive and unknown implications. This serves as an additional deterrent to those that may consider such idiotic ideas of the old financial system.

Quote from: Satofan44 on July 21, 2025, 12:15:31 PM

If the solutions to this problem all remain controversial, and many users do not support them, then what? Try to force the update, which would significantly aggravate the negative impact from this precedent? Roll Eyes

It would be easy if we could reach strong consensus, but this is not going to happen with proposals that involve freezing. How we approach this lack of consensus will have a bigger impact on Bitcoin's future than any amount of "stolen coins" could ever have.

There is a strong chance that even a simple majority consensus will be impossible on this (not to even mention the supermajority consensus requirement that is traditionally required or desired in Bitcoin), so the key question will be "What then?". My cypherpunk sense tells me that there will be many people who will reject any proposal in these lines. As a compromise I could maybe accept freezing of P2PK addresses as those were a flaw in the original design of the system, but not more than that. Whoever still has such an address is using Bitcoin wrong.

Edit: Thanks d5000, fixed typo regarding address types.