short
- The new Bitcoin proposal aims to address the risks posed by quantum attacks.
- BIP-361 will disable existing Bitcoin signature verification over a period of five years.
- Some observers see it as a necessary defense, while others see it as confiscation.
new Bitcoin The proposal would phase out the network’s current signature schemes and freeze coins that fail to migrate to quantum-resistant addresses.
The proposal, dubbed the “post-quantum migration and legacy signature sunset,” would prevent users from sending Bitcoin to older address types that are vulnerable to quantum attacks, and ultimately disrupt the cryptographic methods the network has relied on to verify transactions since its inception.
Co-author Jameson Loeb and five other developers updated the proposal in the official Bitcoin optimization storehousepublished as BIP-361 on Tuesday.
Quantum attacks are a theoretical method of using advanced computers in derivation Private keys Of the public keys exposed on A blockchaingiving the attacker control over A wallet Without owner credentials. The moment when a quantum computer appears powerful enough to break the encryption used by Bitcoin is known as “Q-day.”
BIP-361 outlines a three-stage timeline: blocking flows to vulnerable addresses approximately three years after activation, freezing all legacy coins after two years, and leaving the future recovery path open by… Zero-knowledge proofs For holders who miss the deadline.
More than 34% of all Bitcoins have been exposed Public key On-chain, according to the proposal, leaving that money vulnerable to theft by a sufficiently powerful quantum computer. No previous Bitcoin upgrade has rendered existing transactions invalid, making BIP-361 the first to force a choice between collective defense of the network and individual access to coins.
BIP-361 remains in draft condition With no activation schedule it depends on Pep-360a separate quantum-resistant transaction framework that is still under review.
Security costs
Earlier in March, Google published official timeline for transitioning its infrastructure to post-quantum cryptography by 2029, describing the quantum frontier as “closer than it may seem.”
Bitcoin has historically treated a valid signature as “sufficient proof of control,” regardless of the age of the coin or key, said Liu Fan, founder of the decentralized computing network Cysic. Decryption.
BIP-361 would change that by treating “timely migration as part of maintaining ownership.”
The new proposal “shifts quantum risk from ‘I might get robbed later’ to ‘If I miss the deadline, I might lose consensus access,'” Fan said, adding that the proposal amounts to “making Bitcoin more interventionist” in order to prevent vulnerable coins from becoming “looted to the first entity with a working quantum computer.”
But not everyone agrees that the trade-off is justified.
said Frederic Fusco, co-founder of the Bitcoin metaprotocol OP_NET Decryption The proposal appears to turn Bitcoin’s founding promise on its head.
The protocol’s freeze “is a forfeiture, full stop,” Fusco said, arguing that the proposal rewrites “not your keys, not your coins” to “your keys, but we froze your coins anyway.”
“The moment you cross that line, you have built a system that can freeze any coins for any reason deemed important enough by whoever controls the next soft fork,” he said. “Today it is about quantity. Tomorrow it is about compliance with sanctions.”
If BIP-361 is adopted, it would effectively mean that any coins still secured only by ECDSA signatures, the default method Bitcoin uses to prove that a transaction has been authorized by the rightful owner, would be “confiscated,” Chris Bickert, principal researcher at crypto firm Fhenix Research, said. Decryption.
“For Bitcoin, there is no other option than a hard fork of the protocol to prevent funds being withdrawn from accounts with exposed ECDSA public keys,” Bickert noted.
However, a disputed upgrade may also break the network.
The price of the unprotected chain “collapses the minute someone shows off stealing a single lot, because it proves that every exposed address is now fair game,” said Enrico Ruboli, founder of Layer 2 Mintlayer. Decryption.
Bitcoin’s decentralized governance is “a strength in normal times and a weakness when you’re racing against the clock,” Rubelli said, adding that a voluntary migration without a hard deadline “only works if you assume the threat arrives on a schedule. It won’t.”
In a tweet“I know people don’t like ‘BIP-361,'” Loeb admitted, adding, “I don’t like it myself. I wrote it because I like the alternative less.
Daily debriefing Newsletter
Start each day with the latest news, plus original features, podcasts, videos and more.
