• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

dirtywick said:
you didn’t fix anything. it’s only possible with crypto. and they’re specifically asking for bitcoin or tether.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can't run crypto scams without crypto (all cats have 4 legs).
But that doesn't mean that all scams involving crypto are crypto scams (my dog has 4 legs).
They could easily have run the same sort of scam using a different method of payment.
Of course if they are demanding a form of payment that is irreversible then that should sound alarm bells.
 
psionl0 said:
Yes, you can't run crypto scams without crypto (all cats have 4 legs).
But that doesn't mean that all scams involving crypto are crypto scams (my dog has 4 legs).
They could easily have run the same sort of scam using a different method of payment.
Of course if they are demanding a form of payment that is irreversible then that should sound alarm bells.
Click to expand...

they could not have demanded any other form of payment for a bunch of reasons. that doesn’t make sense.
 
psionl0 said:
You didn't read the article correctly. There is no talk of disabling the old wallets. Only that you won't be able to transfer coins between the old wallets and the new wallets. It is a typical hard fork.
Click to expand...
From the article

The BIP-361 would require bitcoin holders to migrate their coins to quantum-resistant addresses or risk having them permanently frozen by the network.
Click to expand...
Also

Jameson Loop, one of the outspoken bitcoin contributors, and other cryptographers, have proposed a move that could force bitcoin holders to migrate their coins to new quantum-resistant addresses or face having their coins frozen permanently by the network itself. In that scenario, holders would technically still “own” the coins, but lose the ability to move them.
Click to expand...
Do you understand what "frozen" means? Or "lose the ability to move [your bitcoins]" means?

If the consensus of the miners is to go with the proposal, transactions involving vulnerable wallet addresses will simply be ignored. They won't be allowed on the block chain. Yes you could fork it but there are two problems with that:

1. it would no longer be the "official" bitcoin blockchain and thus the coins would almost certainly quickly become worthless

2. Bitcoins could be taken from vulnerable wallets by anybody with the ability to hack a private key or buy a hacked private key. This would destroy confidence and the coins would become worthless.

So, effectively, the proposal will freeze wallets with vulnerable keys.
 
jeremyp said:
Do you understand what "frozen" means? Or "lose the ability to move [your bitcoins]" means?
Click to expand...
Yes. I have explained it several times. It means that you won't be able to transfer coins between the old wallets and the new wallets.

It doesn't mean that you can't use the old fork any more. The old software isn't going to suddenly vanish like magic.

Unless or until quantum computing cracks the private/public key encryption, I suspect that there will be some who are distrustful of the new standard and continue to use the old fork. What price the bitcoins in the old wallets (and in the new wallets for that matter) have will be anybody's guess.
 
psionl0 said:
Yes. I have explained it several times.
Click to expand...
No you haven't. You said that people with vulnerable wallets will still be able to spend the coins in them. Now, you may be right about that, but it is not what the article says. If an asset is frozen, you can't do anything with it. That's what "frozen" means.

psionl0 said:
It means that you won't be able to transfer coins between the old wallets and the new wallets.
Click to expand...
That's not what "frozen" means.

psionl0 said:
It doesn't mean that you can't use the old fork any more. The old software isn't going to suddenly vanish like magic.
Click to expand...
But all the miners will stop using the old software.

psionl0 said:
Unless or until quantum computing cracks the private/public key encryption, I suspect that there will be some who are distrustful of the new standard and continue to use the old fork. What price the bitcoins in the old wallets (and in the new wallets for that matter) have will be anybody's guess.
Click to expand...
They will be worthless, because, if the new software comes in, most people will move to using newer wallets (it's probably already happening), so, even if you can get a mining network up and running for the old wallets, most people won't be interested.
 
jeremyp said:
No you haven't. You said that people with vulnerable wallets will still be able to spend the coins in them. Now, you may be right about that, but it is not what the article says. If an asset is frozen, you can't do anything with it. That's what "frozen" means.
Click to expand...
Like I originally said, I don't think the article is accurate for the reason I gave. If you believe that the article used the word "frozen" correctly (in that users would not be able to transfer coins between old wallets) then you need to give a reason.

Note that as long as the coins in the old wallets can be sold/exchanged, there will always be miners. This would be true even if the number of miners was so few that mining could be done on a PC.
 

at 21m ben mckenzie, promoting his bitcoin film, explains crypto using a triangle shaped graphic
 
dirtywick said:
www.aljazeera.com

Iran war updates: Witkoff, Kushner to fly to Pakistan as Iran team arrives

These were the updates on the US-Israel war on Iran and Israel’s attacks on Lebanon for Friday, April 24, 2026.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com

us claims to have frozen $344m in iranian crypto wallets. are they lying, and if not, how? and if so, can iran create a fork and keep it's crypto?
Click to expand...

It would appear that the USA has requested that major exchanges refuse transactions to or from a list of wallets which have been identifies as being associated with Iran.

I would guess that exchanges comply with that kind of request under threat of being blocked from the entirety of their USA customers.
(i.e. ban any communications to/from the exchanges' IP addresses.)
 
oh, it's been a while since you posted a laughing dog. thought you were over that phase
 
psionl0 said:
Like I originally said, I don't think the article is accurate for the reason I gave. If you believe that the article used the word "frozen" correctly (in that users would not be able to transfer coins between old wallets) then you need to give a reason.
Click to expand...
No I don't. The article uses the word correctly. However, if you are correct that people will still be able to move coins between old wallets, the article is incorrect on a factual level.


psionl0 said:
Note that as long as the coins in the old wallets can be sold/exchanged, there will always be miners. This would be true even if the number of miners was so few that mining could be done on a PC.
Click to expand...
I don't think there will. What would be the point of mining these coins if they are worthless and somebody else can forge your signature on a transaction emptying your wallet?
 
jeremyp said:
I don't think there will. What would be the point of mining these coins if they are worthless and somebody else can forge your signature on a transaction emptying your wallet?
Click to expand...
What do you think the words "as long as the coins in the old wallets can be sold/exchanged" were in my paragraph were for? Decoration?

Obviously if quantum computing actually cracks the private/public key encryption then that condition will no longer be fulfilled.
 
www.cryptotimes.io

Bitcoin 2026 Day 2: Institutional Firepower Meets Empty Seats and XRP's Vegas Takeover

Saylor & Mallers keynotes shine on Bitcoin 2026 Conference day 2 amid sparse crowds, DOJ signals, and XRP billboards dominating Vegas.
www.cryptotimes.io www.cryptotimes.io

2026 bitcoin conference kind of a flop. bitcoin down $40k from last year's mark, kash patel and todd blanche spoke remotely to a mostly empty room for some reason. bitcoin ponzi schemer michael saylor spoke on the prestigious nakamoto stage, nod to the mythical christlike father of bitcoin, predicts a $200t market and $10m bitcoin price while various other members of government pitched other nonsense like treasuries and energy synergy with ai.
 
psionl0 said:
What do you think the words "as long as the coins in the old wallets can be sold/exchanged" were in my paragraph were for? Decoration?
Click to expand...

I thought was a minor brain fart on your part because it is a tautology. Mining is the process by which coins are exchanged. Saying "coins can be exchanged" is equivalent to saying "there are miners"

psionl0 said:
Obviously if quantum computing actually cracks the private/public key encryption then that condition will no longer be fulfilled.
Click to expand...
OK, technically we could be in a situation where the new wallets are being enforced but the old wallets haven't been hacked yet. So, yes, theoretically, you could have miners that work with the old wallets. If it does happen, the value of the coins will soon reach zero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom