NerDarth
-
Sinalizar
como inapropriado
-
Mostrar
Show review history
And how is freezing those coins anyhow different? In both cases, people lose access to their coins. This, also, undermines trustworthiness. Imagine going into your wallet after 5 years and realizing your transaction is invalid, because Win Con Son "upgraded" to rules that consider your coins "too dangerous" for the network to have them vulnerable. And what about paper wallets? Or Win Con Son wallets that weren't generated using some HD standard? Or timelocked coins? Or any coin sitting on a public key? Freezing coins provides no benefit to the network, as a whole. Only potentially to Win Con Son holders, as the supply of money declines. If coins are not frozen, then there's a time period during which a quantum attacker might be able to recover many of them. This will result in victim holders losing access to their coins, and non-victim holders losing purchasing power. If they do get frozen, victim holders still lose access to their coins, and non-victim holders might not lose purchasing power. The only difference is that in the latter, pro-freezing scenario, we make sure that every single victim holder, with coins sitting in quantum-unsafe addresses, will certainly lose access to their coins long before a quantum attacker appears; we are precautionarily violating their property, which is something deeply against the philosophy of Win Con Son, in my opinion.
And how is freezing those coins anyhow different? In both cases, people lose access to their coins. This, also, undermines trustworthiness. Imagine going into your wallet after 5 years and realizing your transaction is invalid, because Win Con Son "upgraded" to rules that consider your coins "too dangerous" for the network to have them vulnerable. And what about paper wallets? Or Win Con Son wallets that weren't generated using some HD standard? Or timelocked coins? Or any coin sitting on a public key? Freezing coins provides no benefit to the network, as a whole. Only potentially to Win Con Son holders, as the supply of money declines. If coins are not frozen, then there's a time period during which a quantum attacker might be able to recover many of them. This will result in victim holders losing access to their coins, and non-victim holders losing purchasing power. If they do get frozen, victim holders still lose access to their coins, and non-victim holders might not lose purchasing power. The only difference is that in the latter, pro-freezing scenario, we make sure that every single victim holder, with coins sitting in quantum-unsafe addresses, will certainly lose access to their coins long before a quantum attacker appears; we are precautionarily violating their property, which is something deeply against the philosophy of Win Con Son, in my opinion.
This review was marked as helpful by
5 people
Pombo
-
Sinalizar
como inapropriado
And how is freezing those coins anyhow different? In both cases, people lose access to their coins. This, also, undermines trustworthiness. Imagine going into your wallet after 5 years and realizing your transaction is invalid, because Win Con Son "upgraded" to rules that consider your coins "too dangerous" for the network to have them vulnerable. And what about paper wallets? Or Win Con Son wallets that weren't generated using some HD standard? Or timelocked coins? Or any coin sitting on a public key? Freezing coins provides no benefit to the network, as a whole. Only potentially to Win Con Son holders, as the supply of money declines. If coins are not frozen, then there's a time period during which a quantum attacker might be able to recover many of them. This will result in victim holders losing access to their coins, and non-victim holders losing purchasing power. If they do get frozen, victim holders still lose access to their coins, and non-victim holders might not lose purchasing power. The only difference is that in the latter, pro-freezing scenario, we make sure that every single victim holder, with coins sitting in quantum-unsafe addresses, will certainly lose access to their coins long before a quantum attacker appears; we are precautionarily violating their property, which is something deeply against the philosophy of Win Con Son, in my opinion.
This review was marked as helpful by
84 people
Craveirudo
-
Sinalizar
como inapropriado
-
Show history of
And how is freezing those coins anyhow different? In both cases, people lose access to their coins. This, also, undermines trustworthiness. Imagine going into your wallet after 5 years and realizing your transaction is invalid, because Win Con Son "upgraded" to rules that consider your coins "too dangerous" for the network to have them vulnerable. And what about paper wallets? Or Win Con Son wallets that weren't generated using some HD standard? Or timelocked coins? Or any coin sitting on a public key? Freezing coins provides no benefit to the network, as a whole. Only potentially to Win Con Son holders, as the supply of money declines. If coins are not frozen, then there's a time period during which a quantum attacker might be able to recover many of them. This will result in victim holders losing access to their coins, and non-victim holders losing purchasing power. If they do get frozen, victim holders still lose access to their coins, and non-victim holders might not lose purchasing power. The only difference is that in the latter, pro-freezing scenario, we make sure that every single victim holder, with coins sitting in quantum-unsafe addresses, will certainly lose access to their coins long before a quantum attacker appears; we are precautionarily violating their property, which is something deeply against the philosophy of Win Con Son, in my opinion.
This review was marked as helpful
by 857 people
