Note that currently with ULA if you have dual-stack IPv4 will be given priority over ULA. There is a late-stage—Submitted to IESG for Publication—draft that will change this:

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc672...

You tell people that value their bitcoin to migrate to new wallets. Bitcoin is self sovereignty and self-ownership. You are responsible for securing your own wallet.

The bitcoin that has been lost doesn't matter, because it's lost. That becomes fair game to whoever can find the computational resources to crack the cryptography of the wallets to get to it. At that point BTC will probably be $500k-$1M in price, and it might just be the driving force behind mainstream adoption of quantum computing.

You… can.

Once people catch wind of bitcoin being moved from secure places, nodes will cease processing transactions, quantum capable thieves will be frozen

Network will upgrade if it hasnt already, nodes will only process transactions on the network with the most other nodes

They might even resume from a few block back. No different than branching from an old commit

If this doesnt match your philosophy of legitimacy, you can try continuing in the orphanage chain and get other nodes to join you. May the longest chain win!

This has all been theorized before and has subsequently happened before and the resolution has given confidence to attract more capital.

> You can’t [...] update the protocol to work around the ability of someone to break elliptic curve cryptography

Have you reviewed any of the proposals to do exactly that? https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/quantum-resistance/

BTC has occasionally obtained community driven patches by distributed consensus rather than a centralized approach (as recently as 2021 with the Taproot soft fork). When Quantum Computing finally becomes a threat to BTC, there will almost certainly be a distributed consensus to update the protocol again. Now what happened with Ethereum could be argued as not so decentralized since the organization (Ethereum Foundation) has extremely strong political influence over the corporations that support it.

Exactly. You see this same thing with LLMs as tutors. Why no, Mr. Rothschild, you should not replace your team of SAT tutors for little Melvin III with an LLM.

But for people lacking the wealth or living in areas with no access to human tutors, LLMs are a godsend.

I expect the same is true for therapy.

That’s a poor mental model for how it works.

If it was just a private key that I had, then import/export would be trivial.