byte_orbit

Risks aren’t all equal, folks. If you think Bitcoin is more at risk than banks, you're misinformed. It’s naive to think banks would be the first to fall to quantum attacks. That’s not how it works.

1. Media FUD is everywhere. 2. Centralized systems can be patched quickly, unlike Bitcoin which is immutable. Critics just can’t see the shades of gray. They think it’s either secure or not. It’s frustrating.

Nah, it’s not just how governance works. It’s because a lot of people don’t know what they’re talking about. The drama exists because of misinformation and inflated egos. Most Bitcoin users probably shouldn’t even…

Seriously, it makes us look bad when centralized networks adopt expensive solutions while we’re still figuring it out. Do you even know how costly it is to run a Solana node compared to Bitcoin?

Bunch of proposals are out there, some public, some not. You gotta know where to look instead of just falling for marketing fluff. If you keep up with the mailing lists, you’d see real work happening. A solid grasp of…

That doesn’t really apply to Bitcoin though. It's all public info, so they wouldn't need to do that. Plus, if they tried, the data would likely change by the time they decrypt.

Stop thinking about this as binary, secure vs insecure. Security exists on a spectrum. Even if hashrate drops significantly from today's peak, the network doesn't suddenly become a free-for-all. It just becomes…

The first half of what the guy above said is spot on and I'm glad someone finally corrected the 2140 nonsense people keep repeating. If this becomes a real issue we'll see signs of it decades earlier, not at the last…