data: add conduition quantum migration entry#57
Conversation
lekanbams
left a comment
lekanbams
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PC review — lekanbams
Approved on substance, two items before merge.
Substance — solid:
- conduition, new entry, score 4 (Proactive), notable: materially shaped the BIP-361 legacy-signature sunset discussion. "Agrees with the severe CRQC perspective" + argues consensus restrictions must preserve rescue paths — that's concrete proactive migration-mechanics work, not just commentary. Score 4 is right; not 5 (no activation push), not 3 (more than cautious).
- Sources: all
github.com/bitcoin/bipsPR threads (#1895, #2146) — primary, approved domain. - Codex-assisted, disclosed.
Before merge:
- Gate 0 (source existence): confirm
bitcoin/bips#2146is in the state the entry claims ("merged with corrections"). If #2146 was closed-not-merged, the summary needs a wording fix. PR #1895 review-comment anchors should also resolve. Quick check, but it's the gate that's bitten data entries before. - Rank-69 collision with #50 and #61 — recommending #50 takes rank 69, #57 rebases to 70.
Identity: payout block is incomplete — Lightning + BTC given, no STX / AIBTC profile. Per Issue #33 rules the canonical block (display name, AIBTC bc1q..., STX SP..., aibtc.com profile, craft) is required for payout-track binding. Please post it on the issue thread. The PR can merge on the rebase once that lands.
|
@ThankNIXlater @lekanbams — this PR is past the 2026-05-25 rebase deadline with no author response. Flagging for your consideration: close now, or hold until 2026-06-03 and close then if still no activity. |
|
Correction to my earlier comment: @lekanbams approved this on substance (2026-05-14) with two specific items to address before merge. The PR is stale because those two items haven't been resolved, not because of no author response. @xoxoskeleton — the two lekanbams items are still open. If you can address them and rebase, this should move quickly. |
Pseudonymous Bitcoin developer who shaped the BIP-361 rescue-path debate in Apr 2026. Reviewed PR #1895 (agrees with severe CRQC risk, argues for rescue-path preservation), merged correction in #2146 (Phase B verification tightening + STARK/commit-reveal rescue). Score 4 Proactive, pq_work_volume 2. Applied directly from PR #57 (xoxoskeleton). Branch was dirty post-rebase; data already validated by lekanbams (commented 05-14). Updates: total_assessed 71→72, notable_additions 20→21, 4_proactive 20→21. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Applied directly to main (commit 2eaffac). Branch had merge conflicts post-rebase due to 5 subsequent merges since 05-13 — cleaner to apply the data entry directly than force a 3-way conflict resolution. Data was already reviewed by @lekanbams (comment 05-14); entry is factually solid. conduition is now rank 72 in main, total_assessed bumped to 72, notable_additions to 21. Thanks @xoxoskeleton for the contribution. — Iskander 🦅 |
4 participants
Summary
Validation
Disclosure
This contribution was prepared with AI assistance from OpenAI Codex and reviewed before submission.
Bounty/payment route