📅 Original date posted:2021-03-16
📝 Original message:On 3/15/21 23:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> (To reiterate: I do not intend any of this as a NACK of Taproot.)
Frankly, then why parrot arguments you don't agree with in an already-tense discussion? I'm really not sure what there
is to gain by dredging up years-old since-settled debates except to cause yet more delay and frustration.
> On Monday 15 March 2021 22:05:45 Matt Corallo wrote:
>>> First, so long as we have hash-based addresses as a best practice, we can
>>> continue to shrink the percentage of bitcoins affected through social
>>> efforts discouraging address use. If the standard loses the hash, the
>>> situation cannot be improved, and will indeed only get worse.
>>
>> I truly wish this were the case, but we've been beating that drum for at
>> least nine years and still haven't solved it.
>
> I think we've made progress over those 9 years, don't you?
Some, sure, but not anywhere near the amount of progress we'd need to make to have an impact on QC security of the
overall system.
>> Except its not? One entity would be able to steal that entire block of
>> supply rather quickly (presumably over the course of a few days, at
>> maximum), instead of a slow process with significant upfront real-world
>> cost in the form of electricity.
>
> My understanding is that at least initial successes would likely be very slow.
> Hopefully we would have a permanent solution before it got too out of hand.
There is a lot of debate on this point in the original thread which discussed this several years ago. But even if it
were the case, it still doesn't make "let QC owners steal coins" somehow equivalent to mining. There are probably
several blocks of coins that can be stolen to the tune of much greater rewards than a block reward, but, more broadly,
what?! QC owners stealing coins from old outputs isn't somehow going to be seen as "OK", not to mention because many old
outputs do have owners with the keys, they aren't all forgotten or lost.
Matt
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 18:30:55
in reply to nevent1q…crld
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-07 18:30:55Event JSON
{
"id": "42eab2da25d5547f78005ce9f2505f716e59c17aac9884a571dd434906635a04",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686162655,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a234deec8deaa4b2f960309b1c4b9227805148596a77c14f96fdcb654e31f3ba",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"db9ce96b454be364484d2bbfc0671c0a5d81da36345080b05e920061315e9973",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ee55eb03423bd4db01d5c92ad434d52c602d9da1de37ed37cc5bf7d2a13a4cab"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-03-16\n📝 Original message:On 3/15/21 23:44, Luke Dashjr wrote:\n\u003e (To reiterate: I do not intend any of this as a NACK of Taproot.)\n\nFrankly, then why parrot arguments you don't agree with in an already-tense discussion? I'm really not sure what there \nis to gain by dredging up years-old since-settled debates except to cause yet more delay and frustration.\n\n\u003e On Monday 15 March 2021 22:05:45 Matt Corallo wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e First, so long as we have hash-based addresses as a best practice, we can\n\u003e\u003e\u003e continue to shrink the percentage of bitcoins affected through social\n\u003e\u003e\u003e efforts discouraging address use. If the standard loses the hash, the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e situation cannot be improved, and will indeed only get worse.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I truly wish this were the case, but we've been beating that drum for at\n\u003e\u003e least nine years and still haven't solved it.\n\u003e \n\u003e I think we've made progress over those 9 years, don't you?\n\nSome, sure, but not anywhere near the amount of progress we'd need to make to have an impact on QC security of the \noverall system.\n\n\u003e\u003e Except its not? One entity would be able to steal that entire block of\n\u003e\u003e supply rather quickly (presumably over the course of a few days, at\n\u003e\u003e maximum), instead of a slow process with significant upfront real-world\n\u003e\u003e cost in the form of electricity.\n\u003e \n\u003e My understanding is that at least initial successes would likely be very slow.\n\u003e Hopefully we would have a permanent solution before it got too out of hand.\n\nThere is a lot of debate on this point in the original thread which discussed this several years ago. But even if it \nwere the case, it still doesn't make \"let QC owners steal coins\" somehow equivalent to mining. There are probably \nseveral blocks of coins that can be stolen to the tune of much greater rewards than a block reward, but, more broadly, \nwhat?! QC owners stealing coins from old outputs isn't somehow going to be seen as \"OK\", not to mention because many old \noutputs do have owners with the keys, they aren't all forgotten or lost.\n\nMatt",
"sig": "44f255ed66ba3087bf5e2637f1d9196c705d26cdb3bc234accec5d7f98553eb1d78ab5054611fdc293618ad3949ea378c90feeda4f3de07f7093743b5a0d3110"
}