I get that this sounds pretty far-fetched, but just for the sake of discussion...
Quantum tech is a real risk, and there's no solid agreement on how to deal with Satoshi's wallet and the lost or burned BTC (around 5-6 million BTC) that can't be upgraded.
So, could we look at this from two angles:
First idea: What if Bitcoin Core Developers agreed to let the US "protect" these Bitcoins indefinitely? This would obviously require some kind of teamwork between the developers and the US government, plus probably some Congressional nod to ensure these coins won't be sold off.
Reasoning: In a few years, the US could become the crypto capital of the globe, and BTC developers might see the backing of the US federal government as the most secure way to keep these coins safe. Plus, they might think the US "deserves" these coins because of its pro-crypto moves.
Counterargument: But seriously, can we trust any government, even the US? This goes against the libertarian spirit of BTC and puts a ton of faith in people, laws, and governments instead of the code itself. There’s no real "guarantee" that the US would hold onto these coins forever.
Second idea: The US government could use quantum computers to "take" these coins (or whatever word you want to use) but promise to keep them safe and never sell them.
Reasoning: The BTC community wouldn’t even need to "approve" this since the US would likely just "acquire" the "lost" Bitcoins without seeking permission.
Counterargument: Again, same issue. You can't trust the US government to keep the Bitcoin safe. People are untrustworthy, only the code can be counted on.
I dont think either option really fits Bitcoins philosophy. The whole idea is to remove trust from governments and humans, so letting any country control those coins would set a bad precedent. Even with good intentions, people wouldnt trust that the coins stay untouched forever. If quantum ever becomes a real issue, Bitcoin will more likely upgrade its cryptography instead of trying to revive or reassign lost coins, because the system works best when rules come from code, not authority.
It is not possible to upgrade all wallets. The owner must actively move the btc and sign a transaction.
That is the point of the post. Something has to be done about satoshis wallet, and 5m other coins that are lost.
If that happens, I think there could be a quantum computer war between major countries. As of today, the biggest player in this new sector is the USA. But Im sure countries like China, Russia, and others already see it as a serious threat.
Its not only about the Bitcoin network. It could affect much more than that, like hacking other countries defense systems. At that point, it would feel like open warfare. The world might eventually need an some kind of global quantum computing treaty
No. But they could tell the developers write a btc stale wallet fork or we will arrest all of you.
So any coin frozen for x years in a wallet goes back into block rewards.
No.
It's a very simple matter. No government can ever control Bitcoin, if they can then bitcoin would die and cease to exist. Because of that they cannot prevent the bitcoin network from forking to a quantum resistant protocol preventing such a theft long before it materializes.
It would be a non-sense to "control" and "change" now the rules of consensus that have been used.
Only with an hard fork.... I doubt people would be happy to use the forked version... at the end would be just another "useless fork"...
Moreover, excluding the real utility of this idea (decentralization? safety of the net?...) who would trust a network that has been "taken" in control by a government? even if partially... if they take control of some coins arbitrarly who will trust the whole concept?
what could limit another nation to counter attack Satoshi's Btc or others?
Real worst scenario...what it could be limit to add the same also to other coins (imagine if linked to "terrorist" and so on...)
Bitcoin blockchain is decentralized and it is very adaptive with forking for technical upgrades when necessary. This technical ability of Bitcoin is helpful for its blockchain to survive well against any centralized attacks from Bitcoin mining pools or governments. It's because the Bitcoin community know their benefit and they can response very quickly to any attack in order to keep Bitcoin blockchain secure and safe.
In Bitcoin mining history with some reports, you can see what happened in the past, when Bitcoin mining pools could do 51% attacks but they did not do that.
We continue to cause FOMO on others about bitcoin because of the way we are making it appear that quantum is a threat to the network, honestly this may trigger a massive action whereby you see investors selling and pulling out of the market because of the fear the quantum may cause on bitcoin network and they wouldn't want to risk their assets when that time comes, so all these people have been saying about me just only cause more confusion and help with nothing in the situation at hand.
Did you feel you say something contradicts with each other?
If quantum computer is a threat, talking about it, spreading this threat on media will mostly result in panic in the Bitcoin community and on the market. It won't result in any FOMO effect at all, as in my view, when people discuss about Quantum computer, especially Bitcoin outsiders or newbies, they feel very fearful about this threat.
People who want to attack Bitcoin, make people in the market fearful and panic sell will try to use any news they can, including quantum computer development, advance quickly and becomes a bigger threat to Bitcoin blockchain.
OP, why do you think the country that should be trusted to store Satoshi coins should be the US? Currently, there are very few countries in the world that consider them a reliable partner.
If I had to choose a country to be the one that could hypothetically store these coins, I would choose a neutral country like Switzerland. Besides, it's not like quantum computers will become a threat in a few years (probably in 10+ years), and then the world will have much bigger problems than who will hack Satoshi coins. If Satoshi is alive and has the private keys, it will be the right time to move the coins to a safe address.
I am slightly biased since I am American, but that has little to do with it.
The main argument is that it will likely be an American company that develops the first quantum computer capable of deriving private keys from exposed public keys.
This assumption is the basis of my argument. Therefore, if Americans have control of the "tool" or "weapon" to disrupt Bitcoin, then why not proactively use it to keep bitcoin safe?
to reiterate, according to most experts (not me), over 5-6M wallets including Satoshi's will NOT be able to be upgraded automatically. something needs to be done about these wallets or else these companies (or whoever has access to quantum) can access them.
It makes little sense to "give" the bitcoin for the Swiss to safeguard simply on the basis that they have historically been "neutral"
It makes more sense, imo, to allow the nation who actually has the ability to do something.....to actually do something about it
the other point I made in my OP is that between now and then, America still needs to fulfill its promise of being the crypto capital of the world.
Trump declaring that is not nearly enough. we still need more legislation and crypto friendly laws from now until quantum is capable of disrupting the bitcoin network. if America is able to do that, then they "deserve" to hold the 5-6M btc
however, I am not saying this is the best option. I just simply have not heard a better solution to the quantum threat just yet from BTC developers. on the contrary, Laura Shin just interviewed a BTC developer days ago and he said the community doesn't even think quantum is a big threat
It's fair of you to admit that, so even though I have a bad opinion of the president and those he is surrounded by (given that I'm from the EU), I think there are a lot of people in the US who may be just now starting to understand that the current policy is not only pointless, but also quite dangerous.
I got the impression (according to the news I've been reading for the past year) that even the US admits that China is quite ahead of them in terms of AI development, and therefore probably also quantum computers. When you look at the technological development of China in the last 20+ years, it is hard to escape the impression that they will be the ones to overtake the US in this regard.
Switzerland was (somewhat) neutral even during the world wars, and finance is their main business (along with chocolate, of course) so I don't see why they wouldn't be a good choice. In that case, at least you wouldn't have to worry about what someone who changes his mind about something five times a day will think of doing with those coins.
As for the promise of "crypto capital of the world", that is the promise of one man, not America.
I understand your point, but letting one country control those coins goes against Bitcoins decentralized nature. Even if the US leads in quantum tech, trust shouldnt depend on governments. A protocol upgrade or community solution makes more sense, and honestly, the quantum threat still seems far off for now.
Lol I really don't understand why you would come up with this
The essence of Bitcoin is to avoid control and reliance one third party and you proposing the same.
Okay I find this funny
Government promises? Is that the name of a food?
I believe history should have shown that promises don't really stand the test of time especially with politics.
Send it to a burn adress.
Soeh. What if "Satoshi" is still around?
To much conspiracy? Buy XRP. They take it to court.
"usbydefault" means you think like an amarican. You think it's ok to snatch some oil from a hostile country.
I know this might not even be possible now but don't you think that the possiblity of using a quantum computer to steal Bitcoin especially those Bitcoin that had been lost many years ago is possible?
We are in a race of building quantum computer that can do sophisticated jobs and also do the unthinkable. China has claimed that they have built their own quantum computer while the United States is struggling with and to make the research work productive. In many years from now, Bitcoin might become vulnerable to quantum computer and if nothing is done yet to safeguard the Bitcoin network, it can become a disaster.
Whatever the reason government involvement in Bitcoin will only make it more vulnerable to manipulation, as governments will simply create rules that subject Bitcoin to their control.
Because of this, the consensus should not allow even the slightest loophole for governments to intervene in Bitcoin, because even such a small loophole could then be exploited to achieve complete control.
And I don't think the consensus would be so stupid to allow government intervention into Bitcoin, even if it meant allowing the state to secure a portion of Bitcoin, which is impossible.
First of all, just like how US government can do it, anyone else can do it too, and the moment quantum is reached and it can be done, they will all attack without a doubt. But most importantly, satoshi's money is not held in a single wallet, go search and you will find that there is no wallet with a million coins. All of that "satoshi has 1 million coins" is an assumption and not a reality, someone just made it up. So there is no wallet with a million coins, and nobody can hack into anything because there is nothing big to hack if quantum computing would be possible.
As per the recent updates, it would take more than 10 years with the currently available technology for quantum computing to be a reality. Hence in between time, bitcoin ecosystem may switch to SHA-512 or more advanced algorithm to remain protected.
Id like to see those coins go toward some amazing goal to better the lives of people. It wouldnt be the way of the free market though. Whoever ends up with the keys gets the coins. Thats just how it is. We can only hope the coins end up in good hands. The slope is too slippery to take any action that treats them separately from other coins.