pull down to refresh

232 sats \ 1 reply \ @BallLightning 11 Apr \ parent \ on: What year does avoiding a soft fork become riskier than implementing one? bitcoin AskSN lightning

The problem with bitcoin is different from the problems with other systems for the following reasons:

  1. Other systems are centralized and can be centrally updated quickly or stopped if a real threat appears. Bitcoin cannot do that.
  2. Bitcoin changes happen slow, so developments specifically for bitcoin should start as soon as possible.
  3. I may be wrong here, but as far as I know currently post-quantum encryption algorithms use keys that are larger then the current bitcoin keys. This may present a problem specifically for bitcoin, where block space is limited.
  4. When a soft fork is implemented there will be a long time for the users to transfer their money to quantum resistant addresses.

So I would love people to take this seriously. I don't understand cryptography, but people who do need to think specifically in the unique context of bitcoin. I hope good post quantum addresses will be implemented in bitcoin.

(BTW even a small probability that quantum computers can break the cryptography in the near future warrants an action. Being prepared for a possible threat that does not materialize is OK. The danger is enough to take action. You don't really know for sure whether quantum computers will be ready in two years, 10 years or 100 years.)

write
compose
4 sats \ 0 replies \ @Aardvark OP 11 Apr

I absolutely agree that this should be taken seriously. That's why I'm asking when people think a fork needs to be implemented by. I'd prefer if the community was proactive about some of these issues.

reply