Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on March 08, 2024, 05:37:51 PM

Quote from: titular on March 08, 2024, 03:28:03 PM

Moreover, the consideration arises regarding the implications for dormant Bitcoin holdings, such as those belonging to Satoshi. Without an entity to initiate the transfer to these fortified addresses, does this proposition imply the eventual reactivation of dormant bitcoins?

Probably. If Satoshi does not transfer them to the future quantum safe addresses, then they'll end up being stolen.

On a side note, can someone remind whether address (which assumed to be owned by Satoshi) use P2PK or P2PKH? After all, P2PKH exist since Bitcoin 0.1.0.

Quote from: titular on March 08, 2024, 03:28:03 PM

How would the transition to a quantum-resistant encryption algorithm impact the overall user experience, especially considering the potential requirement for users to transfer their Bitcoin holdings to new addresses?

Quote from: titular on March 08, 2024, 03:28:03 PM

In the event of transitioning to quantum-resistant addresses, what measures could be put in place to ensure a seamless and secure migration, considering the diverse range of users with varying levels of technical expertise?

Short answer, improve what we've done to make people move from legacy address (starts with either 1... or 3...) to Bech32/Bech32m address.

Quote from: titular on March 08, 2024, 03:28:03 PM

Are there any potential downsides or trade-offs associated with the adoption of quantum-resistant encryption that the community should carefully consider before moving forward with such a significant upgrade?

It depends on the cryptography algorithm itself. Usually it has either bigger signature size or longer verification time as the downside.