I bet if @coinbase got hacked and a million bitcoin were stolen, @lopp would be in favor of freezing those coins.

MtGox was a more catastrophic theft than quantum will ever be. * 70% of all trading volume * 850,000 bitcoins stolen from them * 6% of all bitcoins that existed at the time * Roughly 1/10th of the entire marketcap of Bitcoin Look where we are now.

Every Bitcoin momentum cycle arrives with a new distraction. A proposal to freeze coins. A framework to redirect energy toward dollar infrastructure. The protocol doesn't need saving. It needs defending. Study 📚 Bitcoin

You are a Bitcoin holder - you hear about a new proposal - called BIP-361 - something about quantum threats you don’t think much Bitcoin has always worked time passes - devs start talking about old wallets “Satoshi-era coins” “P2PK vulnerability” you read deeper - around 1.7M BTC exposed ~1.1M BTC from Satoshi - untouched for 16 years worth ~$70B+ then you see it, the plan - upgrade the network - give everyone a few years - migrate to quantum-safe addresses seems normal, until phase B - old signatures become invalid - funds that don’t move get frozen forever “for security” the rules change move your coins or lose them Satoshi’s wallet could be frozen the biggest holder in Bitcoin now the question is simple who decides what stays and what disappears?

In Bitcoins News A new proposal that basically reads ...we're forcing you off the "old vulnerable system" onto a new ... slower ... unproven one ... for your "safety" and if you miss the 5-year window ... your coins are bricked forever. Since when can developers freeze addresses ON-chain? Since when do addresses not have a choice? ... what if I want to stay on the "old" & "vulnerable" system ... what if this new system is actually more vulnerable to other attacks ... who the f are these devs anyways, do they truly serve the interest of the community

The Bitcoin core community is conservatively hell-bent on preserving the protocol’s rules. There are two side effects to this. i. Beneficial if such conservativeness doesn't compromise other values. ii. Bad if it does.

Protocols that stick to one identity, usually don’t last. The ones that win? They evolve without breaking their core. That’s why @Coredao_Org is interesting right now. It didn’t pivot. It expanded. Bitcoin everything → Bitcoin power grid → quantum-resistant layer. Each step adds capability. None of it replaces the foundation. Most projects chase narratives. Few build systems that adapt as constraints change. That’s the difference between hype and something that compounds. Curious do you think protocols should stay focused or evolve over time? If you want, I can also craft reply comments to boost engagement under this post (that’s where a lot of reach comes from). Join @Coredao_Org

INSIGHTS⚡️ The network’s shielded pool adoption has reached new highs, with a growing percentage of total supply held in fully private transactions. This metric underscores real user preference for privacy features in everyday usage. Thoughts on shielded adoption trends? $ZEC @electriccoinco #Privacy 📈

Big moves happening. $QNC announces exclusive strategic partnership with Krown Technologies. Aiming to build quantum-secure infrastructure for crypto. Backed by BTC Inc. platform. Watch for volume confirmation.