It feels like the quantum stuff is raining like cats and dogs. I'm sure Nic Carter would like us to thank him for this, but as far as I can tell, a lot of this was coming our way with or without Carter yelling about it.
So here is Jameson Lopp and co's proposal for how Bitcoin should deal with a quantum threat (which is the same Lopp's proposal from summer of last year - #1040337):
- Phase A: Disallows sending of any funds to quantum-vulnerable addresses, hastening the adoption of PQ address types.
- Phase B: Renders ECDSA/Schnorr spends invalid, preventing all spending of funds in quantum-vulnerable UTXOs. This is triggered by a well-publicized flag-day five years after activation.
- Phase C (TBD): Pending further research, a separate BIP proposing a method to allow quantum safe recovery of legacy UTXOs, likely via zero knowledge proof of possession of a corresponding BIP-39 seed phrase.
Phase B is pretty controversial. I can't say that I think the current situation merits such drastic measures. Nor do I think very many bitcoiners would get behind it.
Now Bitcoin has two quantum resistance BIP numbers. Someone should make a @Team_Predyx market for how many quantum resistance BIPs we'll have by the end of 2026. (I'm guessing more than 5).
I don't agree with this BIP.
Essentially, this is a question of which you think is worse: confiscation, or theft.
IMO, confiscation is worse than theft because it involves a top-down consensus level decision to forcibly invalidate someone's coins. To me, that totally invalidates Bitcoin's value proposition as a self custodial decentralized system.
The relative downside of theft is that if the thief dumps their stolen Bitcoin into the market, that lowers the price of Bitcoin. From the perspective of the person stolen from, confiscation or theft makes no difference.
Thus, I'd summarize the tradeoffs this way:
IMO, price can always recover. And making decisions based on price is fiat-driven NGU thinking. I think the damage to Bitcoin ethos would be much worse, including for price, in the long-run.
Some interesting additions to this conversation.
From Lopp:
source
And from BitPaine:
source
And finally, Giacomo Zucco:
source
https://twiiit.com/lopp/status/2044406134178795748
I am a quantum negationist, but if this makes quantum and other pseudoscience believers happier to use bitcoin, then imo it can be a good idea, there is too much money behind quantum propaganda to even try fighting it at this point...
But IMO, there is no need for a 3 phase update, actually this is a bad idea.
Phase A should be skipped entirely, as it will be unpopular and it will only make bitcoin shittier to use, until all the libraries and software catch up.
And B and C should be rolled out together.
Knowing there is a breaking change incoming, libraries and software will naturally migrate to the new consensus.
Why do you think so?
Seems like there should be consensus for Phase C before proceeding with Phase B because Phase B is theft without Phase C.
bip 361 never gonna happen
Step before A: develop post quantum addresses lol
What about vibration
It’s just a phase