Transkript (en)

Jameson Lopp, for instance, co-wrote a proposal to eventually freeze coins that never move to safe addresses, while Adam Back has argued for optional upgrades and no forced freeze. When that happens, there's this question of like what happens to coins that don't migrate in time. So there are like a numerous amount of coins that have been lost throughout time, right? people that wrote the wrong address when they sent it somewhere or they forgot their keys and have lost them or Satoshi's coins because they're still untouched. And so those coins are going to be vulnerable. And so the network kind of needs to make a decision during this fork, like, hey, do we freeze these coins that don't migrate so that people can't steal them and then migrate them and then sell them and then affect the price of my Bitcoin? Or should we just let them do what they do? And so there's a, Two very fierce debates going on. And both of them kind of make sense, right? One side is like, why would you let people steal like the assets that are there knowing that they're going to steal it and then sell it and then crash the price of Bitcoin and threaten the network? And the other side is like, well, the whole point of Bitcoin is that you cannot take other people's assets. And if you're freezing someone's assets, you're going against the entire design of what we're doing here. If you're stacking sats, follow us because we're talking about Bitcoin all the time here. not just when the price goes up.