⭐ Merited by d5000 (3) ,LFC_Bitcoin (3) ,vapourminer (3) ,ABCbits (2) ,Felicity_Tide (1) ,Darker45 (1) ,uche6215 (1)
A new blog post appeared on Jameson Lopp
Against Allowing Quantum Recovery of Bitcoin
In this article, Jameson Lopp addresses the potential threat quantum computing poses to Bitcoin's security. Jameson outlines scenarios where quantum computers could potentially exploit Bitcoin's current cryptographic vulnerabilities to access funds, especially those in addresses with exposed public keys.
Lopp argues that permitting such quantum-based recovery would lead to wealth redistribution favouring entities with early access to quantum technology, undermining Bitcoin's principles of decentralisation and property rights.
He proposes some measures, such as implementing quantum-resistant cryptographic schemes, something that is relatively trivial, but above all potentially rendering vulnerable funds unspendable, to preserve the network's integrity and trust:
The position is not new: I first heard of it in his talk at the "Future of Bitcoin Conference 2024," a video that is, by the way, linked in the above blogpost.
I highly recommend viewing this video before reading the blog post.
This proposal leaves me with mixed feelings.
What is your position on this proposal?
Against Allowing Quantum Recovery of Bitcoin
In this article, Jameson Lopp addresses the potential threat quantum computing poses to Bitcoin's security. Jameson outlines scenarios where quantum computers could potentially exploit Bitcoin's current cryptographic vulnerabilities to access funds, especially those in addresses with exposed public keys.
Lopp argues that permitting such quantum-based recovery would lead to wealth redistribution favouring entities with early access to quantum technology, undermining Bitcoin's principles of decentralisation and property rights.
He proposes some measures, such as implementing quantum-resistant cryptographic schemes, something that is relatively trivial, but above all potentially rendering vulnerable funds unspendable, to preserve the network's integrity and trust:
Quote
In Summary
While the moral quandary of violating any of Bitcoin's inviolable properties can make this a very complex issue to discuss, the game theory and incentives between burning vulnerable coins versus allowing them to be claimed by entities with quantum supremacy are a much simpler issue.
I, for one, am not interested in rewarding quantum capable entities by inflating the circulating money supply just because some people lost their keys long ago and some laggards are not upgrading their bitcoin wallet's security.
We can hope that this scenario never comes to pass, but hope is not a strategy.
The game is afoot!
While the moral quandary of violating any of Bitcoin's inviolable properties can make this a very complex issue to discuss, the game theory and incentives between burning vulnerable coins versus allowing them to be claimed by entities with quantum supremacy are a much simpler issue.
I, for one, am not interested in rewarding quantum capable entities by inflating the circulating money supply just because some people lost their keys long ago and some laggards are not upgrading their bitcoin wallet's security.
We can hope that this scenario never comes to pass, but hope is not a strategy.
The game is afoot!
The position is not new: I first heard of it in his talk at the "Future of Bitcoin Conference 2024," a video that is, by the way, linked in the above blogpost.
I highly recommend viewing this video before reading the blog post.
This proposal leaves me with mixed feelings.
What is your position on this proposal?