Cardano (ADA) founder Charles Hoskinson says BIP-361’s zero-knowledge recovery mechanism cannot rescue the approximately 1.7 million bitcoins (BTC) locked in pre-2013 addresses. This includes approximately 1.1 million bitcoins attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto.
Jameson Loeb, co-founder of Casa, and five co-authors presented the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP-361). It seeks to cancel old ECDSA/Schnorr signatures, making the funds on those addresses unspendable.
Hoskinson points to a fatal hole in Bitcoin’s quantum plan
It is estimated that over 34% of Bitcoin It is held at potential titles Vulnerable to future quantum threats, prompting a renewed focus on mitigation efforts. the The BIP-361 proposal seeks to address the vulnerability.
the Legacy phase-out project Bitcoin signatures are in three stages. Phase A blocks new transmissions to vulnerable addresses. In Phase B, nodes will reject all transactions that rely on ECDSA and Schnorr signatures
Phase C, pending further research, will allow holders to recover frozen coins. They will provide evidence of lack of knowledge of possession of the initial ferry BIP-39. However, concerns remain about the viability of this recovery. Hoskinson said in a recent video Which,
“1.7 million coins can’t do that. It’s not possible. 1.1 million of them belong to Satoshi.”
Subscribe to our YouTube A channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
he He explained that these currencies arise From the early Bitcoin architecture, which predates modern standards such as BIP-39 seed statements and hierarchical deterministic key generation.
As a result, they fall outside the assumptions required for zero-knowledge recovery systems, limiting the effectiveness of proposals like BIP-361 for legacy properties.
“If you built a ZK system based on a proof of statement, your 39-bit key, let’s say I had these things, you could recover some of the 8 million bitcoins, but the 1.7 million are not in that scheme. All the 2013 and earlier bitcoins,” he added.
The limitation is acknowledged in BIP-361 itself, which acknowledges that “it is not possible to establish evidence of HD portfolio ownership of UTXOs created before the existence of BIP-32.”
“Phase C is also compatible with the hourglass-shaped BIP pattern of spending P2PK pledged funds, provided that the BIP is activated by the time Phase C is activated,” the draft says.
Hoskinson also opposes the soft fork classification. He says It will require Plan A Solid fork. The text of BIP-361 acknowledges that consensus rules may eventually need to be relaxed.
“After Phase B, both senders and receivers will need upgraded wallets. Phase C, if activated in conjunction with Phase B, may be soft-forkable, otherwise it would likely require relaxation of consensus rules (hard fork) to allow recovery of soft funds,” the authors wrote.
Notably, Loeb admitted discomfort with the proposal, stating that he himself did not like it but considered the alternative less acceptable.
Follow us on X To get the latest news as it happens
this post Why BIP-361 Can’t Save Satoshi’s Bitcoin, According to Charles Hoskinson appeared first on BeInCrypto.
