nostr:npub1vwymuey3u7mf860ndrkw3r7dz30s0srg6tqmhtjzg7umtm6rn...

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "22562a65614b226ce774094639d5e384fd074682af1fe34bc78b6d049eb89748",
  "pubkey": "fe32b72cf7c34a8ea1a45f2b98d389258d9b3f3f4b0c704601e2368914cfcb1e",
  "created_at": 1775829327,
  "tags": [
    [
      "p",
      "6389be6491e7b693e9f368ece88fcd145f07c068d2c1bbae4247b9b5ef439d32"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "098969ce59de54ab66c26a932a37b01e44862a2e33d5aee683077d5b9c38f4bd"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "Ditto",
      "31990:781a1527055f74c1f70230f10384609b34548f8ab6a0a6caa74025827f9fdae5:ditto"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "nostr:npub1vwymuey3u7mf860ndrkw3r7dz30s0srg6tqmhtjzg7umtm6rn5eq2qzugd A few thoughts about your idea of a quantum ready fork:\n\nThe mining factor seems to be the biggest reason this is unlikely to work even if we wanted it to. The difficulty adjustment would, at the time of the split, be set based on our \u003e1 ZH/s, and it's unlikely that we'd have anything close to that much available. I suppose it might be feasible to look at merge mining, but merge mining here would have all of the same centralization concerns it has elsewhere that it is used.\n\nEven if we handle this, manually setting the difficulty lower (assuming this can be done, I'm decidedly not a coder), there's the matter of what block you fork from. Because of course anyone who transacts after the split can then go use their coins on the other fork, and while we wait for a quantum attack, the chains have time to diverge heavily. \n\nYou could consider splitting AFTER a quantum attack, with a roll back, a la Ethereum Classic (gross...), but even this assumes you recognize an attack as a quantum attack and not just someone losing their keys. There is no reason to assume that they would be foolish enough to make it this obvious, as it'd be much more sensible to appear to just be someone losing their keys.\n\nThe latest episode of nostr:npub1pxyknnjeme22kekzd2fj5dasrezgv23wx026ae5rqa74h8pc7j7sn57nke actually had some very good thoughts on how to address quantum. I don't think it's quite as close (or likely to ever happen) as Danny's guest, but I do think his proposed actions as if it were are a sane approach. Rolling out these proposed fixes on Testnet, Signet, etc, and then encouraging people who aren't devs to actually USE these systems to really give it some testing makes a lot of sense. Hard to incentivize this given that testnet tokens are decidedly worthless, but perhaps wallets that put it a little more front and center as a way to help new people to Bitcoin learn their way around without putting real money at risk wouldn't be the worst thing anyway. \n\nI get your rationale for considering a fork, but yea, logistically I don't think it could quite work out as well as you'd like. It might shut up the retards because they'd be too retarded to see why it shouldn't, but in terms of actually fixing anything I think it'd miss the mark. And meanwhile, building things for retards is a really good way to waste a lot of time and energy.",
  "sig": "e7a97f49570fd40a6878d176729b7ced46a20e278e6cb396928456fac202b5d0b74721cc5dd96587eb21ad96e3b63e9fe6aac23e1cd25343f683612d137ed572"
}