How to Handle Quantum Threats in Crypto?

So, Bitmex is throwing around this soft fork idea, right? Basically, if some genius builds a quantum computer that can steal Bitcoins, they wanna freeze stuff. They plan to create this canary fund made of coins vulnerable to quantum attacks... anyone talked about this yet?

Nope, not a peep. I even searched this forum, and nothing came up.

Sounds like a decent middle ground rather than just freezing everything at once. I mean, some folks might donate just to show quantum computers are a joke. But I think freezing everything right after the canary is claimed is kinda quick.

Yeah, I get what you mean, but these ideas can get super complicated. Here’s a related thread that dives in: [link]. Also, there's this canary example: [link]. My point is, OP_CHECKSIG could still be relevant if secp256k1 gets wrecked but SHA-256 stays strong. Simplifying rules like "shortest signature wins" might actually work.

Wait, you think there's a way to generate an address and public key without linking it to a private key? I'm a bit lost here... need some clarity.

For sure! Bitcoin has its own scripting language. You can lock coins to public keys. Like, using OP_TRUE makes it spendable by anyone. This can help test the freezing idea.

But hold up, secp256k1 has loads of public keys nobody knows the private key for! Like, what even is the private key for 020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001?

Exactly, it’s a deterministic thing. No one knows the corresponding private key, not even the creators. But the canary idea feels flawed in fighting quantum threats. It’s like saying to burglars, ‘We’ve got security!’

You're thinking too much like a criminal. Companies want to avoid bad press and legal issues, so they might not go for vulnerable coins. Think of it like a public service.

Probably makes more sense to compare it to bug bounty programs. Some companies are already doing similar things. Yeah, the canary donations might be low, but they could still promote their quantum tech.

But don’t forget, those funds can be traced back to users. I mean, there's a ton of blockchain analysis happening. If you’re not careful, you could expose your identity.

If reputable firms have the first quantum computer, I doubt they’d go after vulnerable coins. The whole debate is about ensuring we have the right quantum-resistant protocol.

You can only suggest a theory that might work, but it's flawed in reality. If an attacker with a quantum machine thinks differently, that can mess everything up!

You’re right! It assumes attackers will take the low-risk route. What if they just go for a straight-up attack instead of playing nice with the detection system?

If you're worried about lattice attacks, you'd need weak signatures. But even without real signatures, they can just generate them on their own. If they have weak numbers, they can totally crack it.

What if Satoshi came back and donated coins to the canary fund? Would that push any quantum computer owners to act? Lol.

Seriously though, does freezing those vulnerable wallets mean they become useless? Like, are those coins burnt?

Bitcoin wasn’t meant to rely on the reputation of companies. It’s about securing the network, not just the funds.

Depends... what’s needed to move those old coins? If we say, ‘Freeze without recovery,’ then yeah, they’re kinda burnt.

If the new rule says you need both ECDSA and quantum signatures, how's anyone keeping old coins gonna comply? I'm curious about the ethics of burning coins due to protocol changes.