Post-Quantum commit / reveal Fawkescoin variant as a soft fork

The essence of the discussion revolves around the critical examination of Bitcoin's potential limitations as a monetary network, especially concerning the necessity for out-of-band payments. The argument is presented that if Bitcoin transactions were to depend on such payments, it would significantly undermine its utility as a medium of exchange. Comparing this scenario to the impracticality of having to make physical visits to a recipient's bank before facilitating a transfer, the point is made that any monetary system requiring similar steps would be inherently flawed.

Further analysis criticizes the commit-and-reveal scheme, proposed as a method within Bitcoin's transaction process, for not aligning with the network's foundational principles. This critique hinges on the idea that relying on external payments—or altruism, in this case—to include commitments in the blockchain detracts from the incentive-based, game theoretic model that underpins Bitcoin. The commentary suggests that while this approach might serve as a temporary workaround in response to specific threats, such as those posed by quantum computing advancements, it lacks viability as a sustainable long-term strategy.

At the core of this discourse is a reminder of Bitcoin's original intent, as outlined in the seminal paper "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System." The argument concludes by asserting that any deviation from enabling direct transactions, akin to cash exchanges without the need for an external settlement mechanism, fundamentally diverges from what Bitcoin was designed to be. The reliance on an exogenous system is critiqued as a departure from the envisioned model, questioning the fidelity of such adaptations to the conceptual groundwork of Bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency.