A technical debate erupted round X after on-chain analyst Willy Wu printed what he known as a “dummy information to quantum safety,” urging Bitcoin holders emigrate their cash from faucet root addresses (bc1p) to SegWit bc1q or older P2PKH/P2SH codecs and keep away from spending till post-quantum safety is out there.
The way to make Bitcoin “quantum safe”
“Up to now, it was vital to guard the personal key (seed phrase). Within the coming age of scary quantum computer systems (BSQC), the general public key should even be protected. Mainly, BSQC can determine the personal key from the general public key. Present taproot addresses (within the newest format) aren’t safe. These are addresses that begin with ‘bc1p’ and have the general public key embedded within the tackle, which is unhealthy,” Wu wrote on November eleventh. 11.
His argument hinges on the well-understood distinction between Bitcoin script varieties. Taproot (P2TR) encodes the general public key straight into the output and tackle, whereas conventional codecs comparable to P2PKH/P2SH and SegWit P2WPKH hash the general public key and solely expose it when the coin is spent. This architectural distinction will likely be vital sooner or later when sufficiently highly effective quantum computer systems can derive personal keys from printed public keys. In keeping with an impartial reference, P2TR really retains the general public key within the output, whereas P2PKH hides the general public key till a while passes.
Woo’s preliminary playbook is simple. Transfer your UTXO to the bc1q (or “1”/”3″) tackle and proceed receiving to that tackle, however “by no means ship BTC from there” till Bitcoin ships a quantum-resistant improve. At that time the proprietor ought to transfer to a time of low congestion to attenuate the window during which the general public key’s uncovered within the reminiscence pool. “Ship your BTC to a brand new quantum-secure tackle when the community is just not congested. Doing so will expose your personal key for a brief time period, however it’s unlikely that BSQC will steal your cash inside that brief time period.”
He additionally warned that P2PK’s “Satoshi-era” output is most in danger, suggesting misplaced cash with previous spending historical past could possibly be susceptible. “Satoshi’s 1 million cash utilizing historic P2PK addresses will likely be stolen (until frozen by a future mushy fork),” he wrote, including that chilly storage in ETFs, authorities bonds, and exchanges “could possibly be quantum-resistant if directors take motion” nicely earlier than a mushy fork.
Whereas Woo characterised the business’s expectations for the arrival of “Q-Day” as “2030 and past,” he emphasised that quantum-resistant requirements are already being rolled out into the broader crypto house.
Former Bitcoin Core maintainer Jonas Schnelli agreed with the hygiene, however opposed the framework. He known as Wu’s plan a wise mitigation plan for unspent cash, saying, “P2PKH supplies years of safety, whereas Taproot exposes public keys immediately,” however rejected the time period “quantum safe.”
In Schnelli’s view, the second any spending is broadcast, “your public key hits the reminiscence pool. A quantum attacker may crack your key and RBF may double spend earlier than the transaction is confirmed (~10 minutes).” Schnelli concluded, “It is a prudent precaution, not a everlasting answer.”
On the time of writing, BTC was buying and selling at $104,693.
Featured picture created with DALL.E, chart on TradingView.com
