r/CryptoCurrency • u/winphan 🟦 23 / 8K 🦐 • 1d ago
TECHNOLOGY Bitcoin's new proposal to deal with Quantum computers
https://cryptocoindaddy.com/bitcoin-quantum-resistant-addresses-coming-soon/133
u/veegaz 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
I lurk sometimes the bitcoin github, and it is really super full of interesting discussions and pull requests with uber deep layers of reviews and approvals.. Even though I work in software engineering, it's way too much smart stuff to digest lol
6
u/_burning_flowers_ 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
I feel this. Working towards my bs in comp prog and I feel this way most of the time lol.
8
u/jacksawild 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
I've seen a few projects like that. Pretty humbling.
3
12
u/Amazonreviewscool67 🟨 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
I really don't see any other way to do it though other than migration.
12
u/mastermilian 🟩 5K / 5K 🦭 1d ago edited 1d ago
Same here. Whenever the topic of quantum computing has raised its head, people have said "there's plenty of time". That plenty of time should be being used right now to give people ample opportunity to move their coins to the new address scheme. This means when the threat becomes real, the system can immediately shift over and anyone who has failed to migrate will lose access to their coins. That is the only way to protect lost coins like Satoshi's and garbage bin guy's coins from getting stolen and completely destroying trust in the system
31
u/OderWieOderWatJunge 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
Interesting, I wondered why no one seems to address this problem. Like the "this is fine" dog.
38
u/9999999910 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
Well the same threat is true of all encryption so it’s not specific to bitcoin in any way even though cherrypicking that context is common. Have your bank accounts migrated to quantum encryption?
12
u/epic_trader 🟩 3K / 3K 🐢 1d ago
Well the same threat is true of all encryption so it’s not specific to bitcoin in any way even though cherrypicking that context is common.
Not really true. Most chains are happy to update their chain via hardforks to deal with a changing landscape, but the Bitcoin community has spent the last 10 years screaming about how "hard forks bad" and how "code is law" and that "Bitcoin was born perfectly out of Satoshi's virgin butthole".
Bitcoin is decidedly anti change and anti upgrade and now find themselves in a very difficult situation which doesn't have any obvious solution.
You think Bitcoin can serve as "digital gold" if someone can lose all their coins cause they aren't able to access them for some period of time or actively paying attention to this space? That's not very "digital gold" like is it?
4
0
u/9999999910 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
It sounds like it’s in the pipeline. Defending from only the most necessary hard forks makes sense to me. Any other crypto has orders of magnitude less to lose, less market importance, less market recognition. If the market placed anywhere near the same level of value or importance on a coin like ETH for example, it would probably find itself at the crux of the same paradox.
1
u/Covid19-Pro-Max 🟩 282 / 282 🦞 22h ago
Bitcoin already had three non contentious hard forks in the past
3
0
u/WoodenInformation730 🟧 0 / 0 🦠 21h ago
Those being...?
6
u/Covid19-Pro-Max 🟩 282 / 282 🦞 21h ago
- July 2010 Chain Fork (addition of OP_NOP functions)
- March 2013 Chain Fork (migration from BerkeleyDB to LevelDB caused a chain split)
- CVE-2018-17144 (Bitcoin 0.15 allowed double spending certain inputs in the same block. Not exploited)
2
u/pop-1988 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 11h ago
The 2018 bugfix was not a chain fork, because the bug was not exploited
The 2010 chain fork was caused by a negative amount overflow bug being exploited (the OP_NOP change was not a chain fork). The fork was successfully reverted because the Bitcoin node network was not yet decentralized
The 2013 chain fork was not caused by migration to LevelDB. The fork was caused when a previously unknown resource limit was triggered by a minor change, causing upgraded nodes to crash, creating a chain fork between the v0.8 crashing nodes and the v0.7 (and earlier) nodes not crashing. The chain fork was reverted because the node network was still small enough to be not decentralized, although it took several months before all the stale-fork nodes were removed from the network. The upgrade to LevelDB came much later
Similar emergency bugfixes would be impossible today, due to the node network being largely operated hands-off, and being genuinely decentralized
0
2
-6
u/OderWieOderWatJunge 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
My bank can switch to a higher level easily. No real migration needed. You can just use more bits to begin with, BTC is stuck at 256
12
u/SaulMalone_Geologist 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago edited 1d ago
Look up "when will banks migrate from COBOL" - a language from the 60s that's no longer used by anyone except folks maintaining legacy systems.
5
u/Lewcaster 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
Tell me you never worked closely with banks without telling me you never worked closely with banks.
You would be baffled of how archaic most of the intranet of the biggest banks are.
8
1
33
u/coinfeeds-bot 🟩 136K / 136K 🐋 1d ago
tldr; Agustin Cruz, a Bitcoin developer, has proposed a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal titled 'Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol.' It suggests migrating funds from older, quantum-vulnerable addresses to quantum-resistant wallets via a hard fork. The proposal aims to reduce vulnerabilities, enforce migration deadlines, and balance risks. Challenges include achieving community consensus, market uncertainty, and legal hurdles. This proactive measure addresses potential future quantum computing threats to Bitcoin's security.
*This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
10
u/arthurdentstowels 🟩 1K / 1K 🐢 1d ago
QRAMP is what I get in my calf when I stretch wrong in my sleep.
1
u/pop-1988 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 11h ago
This is not a migration proposal. Users will migrate their unspent coins as necessary. The controversial part of the proposal is to make coins unspendable if they're not migrated by a deadline. It's a confiscation proposal, not a migration proposal
-7
u/HMCtripleOG 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
Something smelling fishy about it to me. I need to better understand how a quantum resistant wallet is even possible. If it ain't broke don't try and fix it, a hard fork in itself surely creates it's own vulnerability? Potential future quantum computing....
7
u/hitma-n 🟩 131 / 132 🦀 1d ago
Hard fork? Which means creating a new coin?
1
u/DangerHighVoltage111 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 8h ago
A hardfork does not create a new coin. BTC hardforked before.
-20
u/Shoddy_Trifle_9251 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
Anything to keep the scam going...
0
u/Teraninia 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 14h ago
All money is a "scam." (The native Americans found that out the hard way.) It's the nature of money. Don't find this out the hard way.
8
u/BioRobotTch 🟦 243 / 244 🦀 1d ago edited 1d ago
I admire the effort but this will still leave everyone who doesn't migrate's coins vunerable, including Satoshi's coins. It is most likely a state actor will capture them as they are ahead in the quantum race. Bitcoin could implement a post quantum security for all coins but that would need a hard fork, which due to bitcoin's history and the mantra repeated by maxis that would create a new coin and would not be bitcoin anymore.
Every Lie We Tell Incurs a Debt to the Truth
Chernobyl writer Craig Mazin
2
u/winphan 🟦 23 / 8K 🦐 1d ago
Some genius may try to make money off the chaos.
5
2
u/OderWieOderWatJunge 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
Imho there should be a deadline and from some date on all the unsecure BTC will be lost.
2
u/mastermilian 🟩 5K / 5K 🦭 1d ago
Yep, this is the only way. That's why this change needs to be implemented now to give people as much time as possible before the threat becomes real.
1
u/DangerHighVoltage111 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 8h ago
which due to bitcoin's history and the mantra repeated by maxis
Just say dogma.
would create a new coin and would not be bitcoin anymore.
A hardfork does not create a new coin. BTC hardforked before. Small blocker dogmas are stupid, they shot themselves in the foot.
0
u/frenchanfry 🟩 1 / 1 🦠 1d ago
Yea. I won't switch until.
A.) Until another anonymous group or person creates another super coin, fundamentally for the people, that includes quantum computing security features. With another cool unit name, but there's nothing like bitcoin.
B.) Bitcoins hard fork includes a reasonably low capped amount of coins. Maybe, 30-45m. Basically another bitcoin with quantum computing security features, and that there will be incentives for transfer, such as, 1 bitcoin for 2 Units ( for a certain amount of time with a limit of "__" units per conversion session) and less as time moves on, with other incentives like crypto back with purchases or something that gives a healthy adoption without sacrificing the sacred security bitcoin has given.
7
u/RandomPenquin1337 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
I won't switch until you can buy quantum pc hardware, which will probably not happen until well after I die.
Everyone is so worried about this scenario but it's still far out from being reality. Banks and governments would be the first to be susceptible and you should be more worried about your fiat than BTC being taken imo
-1
u/frenchanfry 🟩 1 / 1 🦠 1d ago
Why. I dont own fiat.
3
u/RandomPenquin1337 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
So literally every penny you have is BTC or shitcoins? Maybe some PM? How do you pay bills sir?
0
u/frenchanfry 🟩 1 / 1 🦠 1d ago
So. If I did have a penny should I be scared for it?
3
u/RandomPenquin1337 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
Are you just poor then? I don't understand what you're saying. If you have 100k or even 10k, it would make zero sense in hell to invest every penny in one thing...
If you only have .0000001 sat and live in your mom's basement and still growing up, then cool, do you boo.
1
u/frenchanfry 🟩 1 / 1 🦠 1d ago
We got off on the wrong foot lol. Im just trying to understand your point and I wanted to put you against a bitcoin maxi. Anyways, i live on my own. Play Minecraft and think about the future we all live in.
2
u/RandomPenquin1337 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
Yea i wasn't trying to be insensitive or offensive, simply an example. I couldn't see anyone with financial literacy or stability putting all the eggs in one basket.
1
u/frenchanfry 🟩 1 / 1 🦠 1d ago
I like to stress, if I can but will, bitcoin is not necessarily an investment like a stock. Bitcoin is MONEY. The future, so, with that, would it be agreeable to say bitcoin is, in fact, The Eggs.
1
u/ExtraSmooth 🟦 6K / 6K 🦭 1d ago
Ain't no way
1
u/frenchanfry 🟩 1 / 1 🦠 1d ago
I live in a box and grab the crumbs of noodles I see from people buying cup of noodles at my neighborhood msrket..7/11
4
u/Willing_Coach_8283 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
That coin already exists - BCH
4
2
u/DangerHighVoltage111 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 8h ago
BTC currently has 170million UTXOs. With their crippled blocksize it would take 1 year and 4 month to transfer all UTXOs to new addresses. No other traffic could occur in that time or it will take longer. One could only guess how high fees would spike.
6
u/brainfreeze3 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
The good news is quantum progress is so far scam worthy. They've gotten absolutely no where. All the claims by these companies are exaggerated hyperbole to pump up their stock prices.
2
u/9999999910 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
This sounds significantly price positive, with the net effect being clarification of lost and burned supply. Initial impression anyway.
2
u/Due-Description666 🟧 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
It’s gonna be like port connections: everyone is gonna have their own standard.
Unless, gasp you centralize the knowledge base and policy work.
4
u/epic_trader 🟩 3K / 3K 🐢 1d ago
I'm pretty sure BTC doesn't qualify as "digital gold" if you can't leave your wallet untouched for 5 years without the risk of returning to a drained or voided wallet. That's very much not gold like.
5
u/superpj 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
If you burry gold in your back yard with a public record of it someone’s gonna come digging.
3
u/LogicalCookie8361 🟨 0 / 0 🦠 21h ago
But you dont have to dig out and migrate your old gold to new gold to avoid turning it into dust, do you?
2
u/Independent_Ad_7463 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 18h ago edited 18h ago
This is more like when you buried your gold under 6ft but then metal detectors are invented so you need to bury 10+ft deep again
0
u/ExtraSmooth 🟦 6K / 6K 🦭 1d ago
It's really not hard to check up on your money once or twice a year
2
u/Shir_man 🟦 0 / 0 🦠 12h ago
So, the coin supply would be even smaller in a few years? That would be price-positive
1
1
u/Longjumping-Bonus723 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 17h ago
Well well. HBAR (Hedera) gas aBFT security. No problem with quantum attacks.
1
u/EnclaveRedditUser 🟨 0 / 0 🦠 15h ago
You can already punch in tons of seed phrases into metamask (it tells you when one doesn't work so it's easy to type 11 words then spam copy paste around the 12) logging into 10+ wallets an hour easily. If someone decides they wanted to breach a massive amount of wallets I would imagine it wouldn't be hard to write a script to check many wallet phrases then filter it into a list with the balances/ coins. There is an old program that does it kinda already that was meant to be used to find lost seed phrases u could cycle through all the wallets to see the balances if u had a partial phrase of to find yours
1
u/Jetjones 🟦 1K / 1K 🐢 12h ago
All private keys and balances can be found here: https://privatekeys.pw/keys/bitcoin/1877820820115235069255392236031271476602470162930792576453185096189672177588
Happy digging!
1
u/EnclaveRedditUser 🟨 0 / 0 🦠 9h ago
You just use the 12 phrase login, all words can be found here https://www.bitcoinsafety.com/blogs/bitcoin/seed-phrase-list . You just pick any and there's a billion wallets so after usually 5-10 attempts you login to a wallet. Then you check bscan, etherscan and such to see balances on every network. A large chunk of the wallets will be empty but from my experience every average of 50 wallets I've logged into had coins on them
1
u/gameyey 🟩 41 / 41 🦐 9h ago edited 8h ago
Not going to happen, but good to have a debate started. Burning 1/3 of all BTC at an arbitrary date as a precaution for something that might never happen is a non-starter. And i am not sure why this needs to be a hard-fork, but BTC will most likely never have a planned hard fork upgrade ever again.
Implementing better quantum resistance would be nice, and planning a soft-fork that could be implemented to mitigate damage as soon as attacks does happen would be great.
0
1
0
0
u/1amTheRam 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 22h ago
If we ever get a quantum computer to crack real-time modern encryption. There are way bigger problems than just crypto to worry about.
0
0
-2
u/Regret-Select 🟩 348 / 349 🦞 1d ago
If a concern is a successful 51% attack, I'd imagine just having quantum computers being part of the network would counteract this
5
u/HSuke 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
51% majority attacks are a different important risk.
This one is about old vulnerable P2PK addresses like Satoshi's having their pkeys get brute-forced with quantum computing.
Unfortunately, unless Satoshi/Patoshis are still alive and around to move to a new address, their addresses are still going to get stolen. It's estimated that about 1/3 of all BTC is vulnerable.
235
u/gdscrypto 🟩 0 / 0 🦠 1d ago
Asking users to move funds from old addresses to new quantum resistent addresses. So what will happen to Satoshi's wallet? Will be left to get hacked by quantum computers?