Thanks for the write up Nic. One suggestion I have, is I strongly encourage us to deliberately separate the conversation around PQ sigs/addresses and the lost coins.
There is no world where I see consensus forming to freeze p2pk, and including it as part of the discussion just creates roadblocks. It riles up many, which halts conversation about giving PQ choices to the rest.
These are two separate and discrete issues. First we must give people the option to move to post QC schemes. Status quo here is tremendous damage if we do nothing AND QC emerges.
The tertiary issue is what we do with the coins. Status quo is law of the jungle, which the market would eventually sort through, and the impacts are considerably less important long term.
what's interesting is I see consensus emerging already among developers that the coins should be frozen.
but ordinary bitcoiners (including me) are appalled by the idea.
I agree with you though... priority should be testing and developing PQ sigs and a soft fork & implementation roadmap... satoshi coins are less existential. maybe they get stolen, maybe we figure out a solution. not the end of the world if they get claimed imo.
One momentum building idea could be to provide instructions & centre part of the disccussion on the practical first step of moving from legacy P2PK address format to a more quantum resistant address scheme (P2PKH/SegWit/Taproot).
Of course this would be merely step one in a much more complicated process, but with the advantage of putting post quantum BTC up for broader discussion & highlighting urgency.
Winner company of quantum break legally allowed to confiscate Satoshi's. They will want to help protect all others far in advance to protect their winnings
SN told us day 1 that this would ultimately need to be addressed, the longer the feet dragging goes on the more i am convinced that v30 was the confirmation core has been captured
I wouldn't be surprised if the quantum threat is already impacting the price and popularity of Bitcoin.
Also, this seems like an existential threat to coinbase, binance, and other crypto companies. Surely they are motivated to act now to create a foundation to work on this? Perhaps there should be the equivalent of the United Nations building in New York where Bitcoiners from around the world can visit to work on this problem together.
Thanks for writing this. In my view, the strongest point is not that quantum breaks Bitcoin tomorrow, but that Bitcoin governance moves slowly while migration itself would take years. The real issue, in my view, is less the existence of a future defense than whether the network can coordinate early enough, especially around old exposed coins and lost coins that cannot migrate. That is what, in my opinion, makes this a serious preparedness problem rather than just a speculative technology debate.
Great article Nic! A lot of this is over my head but I get the overriding principle. It does seem like the BTC community is not perceiving this as a threat just yet and possibly to our own peril!
As you state freezing/deactivating coins is the antithesis of all we have fought for. I hope a single “malicious”actor seizes these coins, becomes a centibillionaire, or hopefully trillionaire by 2035, and then claims to be Satoshi. I then hope he tries to use his newfound authority for some seriously good memes.
Fantastic write up. I will be sharing this to educate people who don’t understand why a CRQC poses certain unique challenges to Bitcoin that don’t apply to centralized infrastructures.
Hi Nic. Thanks for your efforts. I'm curious, what do you think about the project $QRL, Quantum Resistant Ledger? The AI's I have queried seem to think that the timelines for upgrading even SOL and ETH to PQC could potentially be quite long / not quick enough to survive Q Day, at least not unscathed
I hold a very small amount in bitcoin. It seems to be a bit of a liquidity meter, which is crashing but soon will pick up with the money printer.
It’s outside my bubble of knowledge. But long-term there is going to be some form of digital gold. I’ve always just assumed it’s a good idea to hold 1-5% (maybe more if it really crashes).
Though, I do think the case for Quantum computing is ramping up. It’s not a time-frame some investors want (probably more like 15 years out), but I do believe in that long term inevitability.
Maybe I’ll split that holding 50-50 BTC ETH because this does make a good case.
I haven't sold any Bitcoin, even given the extreme levels of pushback to my arguments among devs, because I believe in it and I think we will still figure it out.
but it's undeniable at present that Bitcoin is unprepared and moving too slowly. (hency me efforts)
Wow, this is what I was searching for. I agree in that I think eventually BTC devs will solve current Quantum algorithmic weakness but the lost coins being seized is completely antithetical to BTC ideology and thus likely large swaths of lost coins could reappear in supply with a QC hack.
Thanks for the write up Nic. One suggestion I have, is I strongly encourage us to deliberately separate the conversation around PQ sigs/addresses and the lost coins.
There is no world where I see consensus forming to freeze p2pk, and including it as part of the discussion just creates roadblocks. It riles up many, which halts conversation about giving PQ choices to the rest.
These are two separate and discrete issues. First we must give people the option to move to post QC schemes. Status quo here is tremendous damage if we do nothing AND QC emerges.
The tertiary issue is what we do with the coins. Status quo is law of the jungle, which the market would eventually sort through, and the impacts are considerably less important long term.
what's interesting is I see consensus emerging already among developers that the coins should be frozen.
but ordinary bitcoiners (including me) are appalled by the idea.
I agree with you though... priority should be testing and developing PQ sigs and a soft fork & implementation roadmap... satoshi coins are less existential. maybe they get stolen, maybe we figure out a solution. not the end of the world if they get claimed imo.
One momentum building idea could be to provide instructions & centre part of the disccussion on the practical first step of moving from legacy P2PK address format to a more quantum resistant address scheme (P2PKH/SegWit/Taproot).
Of course this would be merely step one in a much more complicated process, but with the advantage of putting post quantum BTC up for broader discussion & highlighting urgency.
Winner company of quantum break legally allowed to confiscate Satoshi's. They will want to help protect all others far in advance to protect their winnings
Game theoretically speaking...
SN told us day 1 that this would ultimately need to be addressed, the longer the feet dragging goes on the more i am convinced that v30 was the confirmation core has been captured
Fantastic write up.
I wouldn't be surprised if the quantum threat is already impacting the price and popularity of Bitcoin.
Also, this seems like an existential threat to coinbase, binance, and other crypto companies. Surely they are motivated to act now to create a foundation to work on this? Perhaps there should be the equivalent of the United Nations building in New York where Bitcoiners from around the world can visit to work on this problem together.
Thanks for writing this. In my view, the strongest point is not that quantum breaks Bitcoin tomorrow, but that Bitcoin governance moves slowly while migration itself would take years. The real issue, in my view, is less the existence of a future defense than whether the network can coordinate early enough, especially around old exposed coins and lost coins that cannot migrate. That is what, in my opinion, makes this a serious preparedness problem rather than just a speculative technology debate.
Still waiting for literally anyone to post a rebuttal that puts in even 1/10th of the effort Nic has put into the series thus far.
me too!
Great article Nic! A lot of this is over my head but I get the overriding principle. It does seem like the BTC community is not perceiving this as a threat just yet and possibly to our own peril!
As you state freezing/deactivating coins is the antithesis of all we have fought for. I hope a single “malicious”actor seizes these coins, becomes a centibillionaire, or hopefully trillionaire by 2035, and then claims to be Satoshi. I then hope he tries to use his newfound authority for some seriously good memes.
Fantastic write up. I will be sharing this to educate people who don’t understand why a CRQC poses certain unique challenges to Bitcoin that don’t apply to centralized infrastructures.
Didn't expect this. Your qubit scalability analysys is very insightful.
Hi Nic. Thanks for your efforts. I'm curious, what do you think about the project $QRL, Quantum Resistant Ledger? The AI's I have queried seem to think that the timelines for upgrading even SOL and ETH to PQC could potentially be quite long / not quick enough to survive Q Day, at least not unscathed
On the upside: a working PQ solution would likely cause the price to pump 👍🏼
What would take over as the top crypto coin if Bitcoin became victim to this situation you outlined? Would it be ETH?
ETH is better positioned to tackle quantum, without a doubt. Vitalik has been on top of it, already admitting that ECC will be obsolete.
I hold a very small amount in bitcoin. It seems to be a bit of a liquidity meter, which is crashing but soon will pick up with the money printer.
It’s outside my bubble of knowledge. But long-term there is going to be some form of digital gold. I’ve always just assumed it’s a good idea to hold 1-5% (maybe more if it really crashes).
Though, I do think the case for Quantum computing is ramping up. It’s not a time-frame some investors want (probably more like 15 years out), but I do believe in that long term inevitability.
Maybe I’ll split that holding 50-50 BTC ETH because this does make a good case.
I haven't sold any Bitcoin, even given the extreme levels of pushback to my arguments among devs, because I believe in it and I think we will still figure it out.
but it's undeniable at present that Bitcoin is unprepared and moving too slowly. (hency me efforts)
Wow, this is what I was searching for. I agree in that I think eventually BTC devs will solve current Quantum algorithmic weakness but the lost coins being seized is completely antithetical to BTC ideology and thus likely large swaths of lost coins could reappear in supply with a QC hack.
~25% dilution probably isn't existential though ?