Phase A: Disallows sending of any funds to quantum-vulnerable addresses, hastening the adoption of P2QRH 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 roughly five years after activation.
Phase C (optional): Pending further research and demand, a separate BIP proposing a method to allow quantum safe recovery of legacy UTXOs, potentially via ZK proof of possession of a corresponding BIP-39 seed phrase.
pull down to refresh
related posts
This seems like a sensible approach. I think it would be better to spend our "developer consensus capital" on something like this than on more "scaling" infrastructure.
I'm not anti-covenants in principle, but the QC issues are so potentially damaging (although very low probability) that it seems that even quasi-ossification proponents could get behind it....
No, this is just as retarded as covenants, worse in fact ... They go hand in hand
This is an attempt to normalize forced upgrades
Quantum is a hoax
I can see that, any links or docs I can read about it
The quantum hoax? just posted a link to a decent video on it
#1040467
To put it even more simply though that scaling the number of qubits needed to crack a key is fundamentally no different than directly cracking the key... its all just scammer word games to explain why it doesn't work and they need more money for R&D... scammers in Bitcoin then ride the FUD train.
Sorry, but this is your source? An AI-generated video talking about a huge conspiracy theory no one could see through and just kept pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into?
I agree that the media often exaggerate things for clicks, but that isn't an argument against technology. I would like to hear an argument that couldn't be used in history against computers, airplanes or AI. These two cited guys are probably basing their calculations on the assumption that things will go in the same direction, but nobody knows if there won't be a breakout in the future (and as always there will be).
It's not a source, intuition is the source. The video articulates some things for people without such intuition.
Orgs poured billions into shitcoins too, all hoaxes. Doesn't require a conspiracy, people are just retarded.
Reality is there's no tangible quantum supremacy to prove the concept, it's just a story that's dragged on for decades without material progress. Handwaving that it could happen in the future is capitulation to this fact, aliens could visit and gift us such magic, but that's not a realistic roadmap.
Good point.
:finger_pointing_up:
what this guy said. with the disclaimer that I can't tell if quantum is a hoax or not, but I trust my instincts.
xDDDDDDDD Thank good you are not the decision maker. Feel free to have this incorrect opinion, but don't get in the way of us other people fixing the issue instead of pretending it's not a problem.
And who are you exactly? Just because your ego wants to believe it can solve a problem doesn't make the problem real. I'll call out your delusions as I see fit, scammer.
Such a quantum threat would also be a quantum miner, making key-cracking superfluous.
Wtf are you talking about. Quantum threat is only about breaking key-signing of UTXOs.
When it comes to mining, quantum algos improves SHA generation only slightly, nothing game changing.
Anyways its clear from this post that you are clueless, so its an end-of-topic from my side.
You're fudding a computing hoax going back to the 70's thats still not doing anything, yea you're a real expert
Coherence of the number of qubits needed to crack a signing key is exactly as achievable as brute forcing it, it's a scam, same difficulty with new wording
I wouldn't go that far, but nevertheless I added my remarks to the PR discussion for this BIP. I encourage you to do the same on the github PR page! Surely you have some useful insight to share with the community xDDD
yeah @justin_shocknet, just remember to be nice or they'll have a good reason to BAN YOU.
What would it take to change your mind on this?
Which part?
What would you have to see from a QC to make you think ECDSA keys are vulnerable?
Some consistent demonsterable undeniable quantum supremacy that illuminates the path to scaling the impossible
It seems like Bitcoin may become plagued with omnibus-ism: if we're gonna do a soft fork for quant, we might as well do the great consensus cleanup...
So it's a pressure bip? To pressure which proposal? 360?
Hmmm, this really disappoints me. I like Lopp's positions on many things but not this one. I'm no expert on Quantum but I'm pretty skeptical of any foreseeable threat. Especially after reading the paper I wrote about earlier today
Yeah, this is going to be whole another conflict on whether to hide this in Taproot trees or to make it very explicit.
👀
Good luck with this fork.
Does it also mean
Buying new wallet hardwares (I use a trezor one)
Creating and storing new seed phrase (my BIP 39 word list cannot unlock coins stored in quantum resistant address)?
Interesting plan. I like that it's not rushed — Phase A encourages the shift without breaking things, while Phase B draws a clear line in the sand. That's smart policy. But Phase C really caught my attention. If they can actually make quantum-safe recovery work using ZK proofs and BIP-39, that would be next-level. Medyo ambitious, pero kung makuha nila 'yan, it would give a lot of peace of mind sa mga hodlers ng old wallets. Definitely something to watch closely.
sounds like trusting "quantum" resistant algorithms, very early in the game, with more steps.
so, this would mean we don't have as big a bounty on quantum cracking at scale
clever!