Quote from: TEBTC on Today at 10:29:11 PM

WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT

This is a new initiative by Bitcoin developers that is aimed at safeguarding the block chain against potential threats from quantum computers because Quantum computers still in their early stages of development pose a future risk to Bitcoin because they could theoretically break the cryptographic algorithms protecting user funds specifically those exposed in certain address types.When you send Bitcoin your public key becomes visible on the block chain a quantum computer could use Shor’s Algorithm to compute your private key from your public key allowing theft of your funds.

QUANTUM VULNERABLE ADDRESSES

Some older Bitcoin addresses particularly those that have already revealed their public key by spending coins are considered quantum-vulnerable they include P2PK ,P2PKH once spent, the public key is exposed Quantum computers could in theory, derive the private key from the public key, allowing them to steal funds from those addresses

This proposal is forward-looking because it's a defensive mechanism or step against a potentially massive cryptographic shift. It’s still in early discussion stages and would require broad consensus to implement via a soft fork.

What is your view on this development on the Bitcoin block chain by developers, you can read more about this on the link below

https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2025/07/16/bitcoin-devs-float-proposal-to-freeze-quantum-vulnerable-addresses-even-satoshi-nakamoto-s

Nearly 25% of Bitcoin are exposed to the quantum breaking threat... And I agree that something should be done before the exposed public key Bitcoin are hacked. But we need clear communication, recovery options, and community consensus. There is still plenty of time to figure this out.

Quantum computing is not progressing so fast that we need to implement panic-driven decisions.

I think freezing should be seen as a last option since it could do irreversible damage without a well-thought-out recovery path. Also, what if we made legacy addresses slower or more expensive to use as a first step towards pushing people out of the outdated addresses?

Consensus shouldn't just come from core dev FUD, otherwise this is just going to create a dangerous precident and make Bitcoin more centralized.