Quantum era incoming. The world's largest exchange might have to rule on Satoshi's coins.
CZ floated an idea back in June: after Bitcoin's quantum-resistant upgrade, give old addresses 6-12 months to migrate. Coins that don't move? Let the community decide if they should be frozen.
BNB Chain already tested post-quantum migration using ML-DSA-44. Technically feasible. But here's the real problem: upgrading signatures only protects future transactions. If AI or quantum cracks a private key from a public key, the on-chain transfer is valid, but in the real world? That's theft.
Nodes will confirm. Blockchain will record. But exchanges have to decide: should this deposit be credited?
Binance's current stolen fund protocol requires victim ID, transaction records, police reports. But what if someone moves Satoshi's 1,096,361 $BTC? Who files the police report for Satoshi? Who proves the mover isn't the original owner?
That's the real disruption behind @1096361BTC and $MBTC. 20M+ brute force attempts won't crack that key today, but it's previewing a question we'll face eventually: when "valid signature" ≠ "true ownership", does the chain follow code, law, or historical consensus?
@cz_binance @heyibinance - if Satoshi's address one day sends $BTC to Binance that's mathematically valid but likely cracked by AI/quantum, do you credit it, freeze it, or wait for Bitcoin community consensus?
Who files the police report for Satoshi? Harder question than when quantum computing arrives.
CZ floated an idea back in June: after Bitcoin's quantum-resistant upgrade, give old addresses 6-12 months to migrate. Coins that don't move? Let the community decide if they should be frozen.
BNB Chain already tested post-quantum migration using ML-DSA-44. Technically feasible. But here's the real problem: upgrading signatures only protects future transactions. If AI or quantum cracks a private key from a public key, the on-chain transfer is valid, but in the real world? That's theft.
Nodes will confirm. Blockchain will record. But exchanges have to decide: should this deposit be credited?
Binance's current stolen fund protocol requires victim ID, transaction records, police reports. But what if someone moves Satoshi's 1,096,361 $BTC? Who files the police report for Satoshi? Who proves the mover isn't the original owner?
That's the real disruption behind @1096361BTC and $MBTC. 20M+ brute force attempts won't crack that key today, but it's previewing a question we'll face eventually: when "valid signature" ≠ "true ownership", does the chain follow code, law, or historical consensus?
@cz_binance @heyibinance - if Satoshi's address one day sends $BTC to Binance that's mathematically valid but likely cracked by AI/quantum, do you credit it, freeze it, or wait for Bitcoin community consensus?
Who files the police report for Satoshi? Harder question than when quantum computing arrives.