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
184 sats \ 10 replies \ @freetx 8h
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....
reply
194 sats \ 8 replies \ @justin_shocknet 7h
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
reply
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @Car 6h
I can see that, any links or docs I can read about it
reply
213 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 6h
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.
reply
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 7h
Good point.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @CruncherDefi 4h
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.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 4h
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.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @CruncherDefi 4h
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.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 4h
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
view all 1 replies
9 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 7h
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...
reply
44 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 6h
š
reply
111 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 8h
So it's a pressure bip? To pressure which proposal? 360?
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 7h
Yeah, this is going to be whole another conflict on whether to hide this in Taproot trees or to make it very explicit.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @hasherstacker 8h
reply