@Domahhhh@luishXYZ@PMTraderAdam They would have clarified if they do not like the outcome. If they haven't clarified, it means the outcome is acceptable.
@bumbadum14 Having the power to not work is empowering. You can still work after FIRE, maybe with less hours, or with a job that you enjoy more but pays substantially less. Having the option make all the difference.
@polymarket_O3O@Frosen Keeping the market open provide liquidity for existing share holders to exit the market. I believe no active trader would prefer to have their shares to be locked in a 3 day dispute.
@Darkfost_Coc@cryptoquant_com Large institutions can reverse fraudulent transaction and their system can stay frozen until an upgrade has been completed. Can Bitcoin roll back a transaction or freeze the chain if such risk materialize earlier than expected?
@nickgiva1@citrini FED will turn the money printer on, and then government will give everyone UBI. Deflation can always be solved with printing more money. Government is only restrained by inflation, not deflation.
@Pran10000@DurdenBTC@MacroScope17 It will likely be a soft fork so not upgrading your node ain't doing shit. If the soft fork sunset ECDSA, and no miner are willing to mine those transactions, your node will still be sync but you just lost the capability to do transactions.
@SGBarbour You can introduce a quantum resistant fork before the risk manifest. But if large amount of stolen coins are suddenly moving, it is too late. Almost impossible to coordinate a hard fork to undo transactions.
@CatoTheElder17@murchandamus@JuergenStrobel@CunyRenaud Your argument shifted from being capable to run a node to running a node for mining. People in third world are likely not mining anyway, they don't need to store it in RAM.
@LiverpoolHODL@nic_carter It take at least a year to get consensus to soft fork a quantum resistant address type. A year or two is then needed for user to migrate their fund to the new address type. It is not too early to start discussing it today.