Quote from: stwenhao on Today at 01:01:32 PM

Quote

I sure hope not, but maybe there are people who keep some of those addresses for the sake of vanity or something like that.

Vanity addresses were historically based on 160-bit hashes, because when people used P2PK, then they did it directly through pay-to-IP. And if someone has vanity public key, then it can be used inside P2TR. Also, vanity addresses, based on 160-bit hashes, can be still nested inside TapScript, if someone needs it.

I meant the literal word vanity, not vanity addresses. A sort of "I've been there" trophy.

Quote

Definition: Excessive pride in one's appearance or accomplishments.

Sorry for the confusion! Post updated.

Quote from: Medusah on Today at 02:20:08 PM

Quote from: Satofan44 on Today at 12:07:13 PM

Am I missing something or did you not read the original post? That is the key point of the whole proposal. To be precise you can't force someone to migrate per say but by disallowing the spending of previous signature types you are in practice doing just that, forcing them to migrate or lose their coins.

Yes, apologies. What I meant is that some of us are not in favor of a "mandatory migration", but rather an optional one. To not freeze any coin, but leave them on the fate of their security.

All clear now! Yes I agree with you even if I mentioned a last resort compromise in my previous proposal. It really depends on how this "war" will play out within the community. If there happens to be a majority NO to any kind of freezing or mandatory migration, I would not consider any compromise at all with those that propose these things. Let them fork themselves away to their own "Bitcoin Quantum Safe", they take the the BQS ticker. Grin