Thoughts on BIP-361 and Quantum Risks

What’s everyone’s take on the new BIP-361 about Post Quantum Migration? Some devs and Jameson Lopp are backing it, aiming to freeze wallets vulnerable to quantum attacks, including those old Satoshi coins. Apparently, around 6.7 million BTC is stuck in legacy wallets, which is like 32% of the whole supply!

I'm no quantum expert, but my understanding is that the risk kicks in once the public key is out there. If quantum decryption is super fast, it could be enough time to mess with a transaction before it’s confirmed. Crazy stuff, right?

What specific risks are we talking about? It’s not just legacy wallets at stake. SegWit v0 uses ECDSA signatures too, so if users don’t migrate to quantum-resistant addresses during Phase A, everyone’s at risk.

Just to clarify, Taproot addresses might seem secure but they actually bring back risks that SegWit fixed. The tweaks don’t add real security against quantum threats. It’s all about how these keys are managed.

Exactly! Taproot exposes the pubkey right off the bat while older types hid it behind a hash until it’s spent. SegWit improved that, but now Taproot reverts some of those benefits. So yeah, not all users are equally exposed right now.

I heard on a podcast that Taproot’s vulnerability is similar to legacy addresses due to the public key exposure. Makes sense, right?

I asked because you mentioned SegWit fixed some issues. So it’s not just SegWit but P2PKH that already addressed it by hashing the public key. But the real impact of this BIP is what Phase B will do to all users.

I still think Phase B is a bad idea. Freezing someone’s Bitcoin is just wrong. I’d rather do nothing than support this.

Jameson Lopp himself said this proposal isn’t a concrete plan or immediate activation. It’s more like a theoretical backup if things go south with quantum computing. Critics seem to be missing this point.

Honestly, I can’t see this being a good idea. Sure, quantum computers could target those vulnerable coins but it’s on users to keep their Bitcoin safe. Freezing coins? That’s a slippery slope.

I think Bitcoin has time to figure out quantum resistance. Even with advanced tech, cracking a secure Bitcoin address remains tough. The cryptographic landscape takes time to evolve.

Instead of freezing, keeping the system intact seems smarter. Users ought to take responsibility for their own security. If you know your pubkey is exposed, just move your coins.

I really don’t want to see 6.7 million BTC flooded into the market. That would kick off an insane altcoin season.

But I doubt anyone would dump everything. That’s just reckless. They’d likely do it slowly, which could still mess with Bitcoin’s supply and price.

Who gets early access to quantum computing? What if governments control it? Just a thought but we need to address these questions before QC becomes a serious threat.

There’s no single government here. Competing nations will all want in. I’m worried about legacy wallets becoming invalid if owners don’t act.

We shouldn’t underestimate the potential network impact. Freezing addresses could lead to price attacks. There are better solutions to mitigate quantum risks.

I think the biggest threat is for addresses that have already been used. Someone could invest heavily in cracking these. We can’t just sit back and hope quantum doesn’t affect Bitcoin.

Yeah, avoiding address reuse is key.

BIP mentions this “Long-Range Attack,” which is risky as QC can work on your private key over time. But there’s also “Short-Range Attack,” where a private key could be hacked in under 10 minutes after the pubkey is public.