eagle1
The Digital Renaissance requires active choice and sustained effort. This means choosing Signal over WhatsApp, Bitcoin over credit cards, Nostr over Twitter, and in some cases running your own infrastructure over cloud convenience. These aren't just consumer choices, they're political acts collectively determining what kind of digital future we'll inhabit.
Assuming, hypothetically and against all evidence, that the idea was even remotely feasible - fortunately there will never be enough consensus to activate this soft-fork - it would be an extremely dangerous precedent. Today we freeze for the quantum "emergency" - entirely nonexistent and fueled by irrational fear and economic interests. Tomorrow for what? For dormant UTXOs that risk destabilizing the market? For those linked to OFAC-sanctioned addresses? For the funds of a failed exchange that need to be redistributed fairly? Once the network accepts the principle, the list of good reasons for introducing arbitrary rules grows on its own. Those who know the history of civil liberties know how this ends: emergency rules remain, emergencies pass.
Let's even assume that in 40 years a quantum computer worthy of the name manages to extract the 5.6 million dormant bitcoin. What's the problem, exactly? Protecting one's UTXOs is a personal responsibility, not a collective one. What are we, in socialism? If Satoshi didn't bother to migrate in forty years, it's his business - literally. And if those bitcoin were dumped on the market and caused a crash? Fine. Bitcoin has experienced 80% dumps and absorbed them all. Volatility is a structural characteristic of this network, not an accident to be prevented by rewriting the constitution. The market does what the market does.