Re: Against Allowing Quantum Recovery of Bitcoin

A significant portion of this conversation focuses on the transition towards quantum-resistant signatures, a topic that has stirred varied opinions and proposals within the community. Among these, a notable suggestion involves allowing quantum attackers to keep a small percentage of vulnerable coins as a reward while requiring the bulk of their holdings to be staged for future miners as an additional security budget subsidy. This could be implemented via a soft fork, mandating that transactions spending quantum computing (QC)-vulnerable coins allocate a majority of funds to outputs encumbered by OP_CLTV-only, with a timelock set far into the future. Such a strategy aims to mitigate potential destabilization effects on the blockchain by distributing the rewarded coins over time, rather than flooding the market all at once.

Parallelly, there's a push from certain quarters of the developer community advocating for a proactive approach in integrating post-quantum cryptography (PQC) into Bitcoin's infrastructure. The debate underscores a preference for a gradual, incentive-based transition over abrupt changes that could foster uncertainty. A three-phase strategy is proposed to manage this shift effectively: initially attaching optional PQC keys to Taproot addresses, followed by disabling vulnerable signatures through a soft fork, and finally phasing out old signatures as the quantum threat becomes imminent. Such measures emphasize the importance of maintaining stability and avoiding panic within the community, suggesting incentives like lower transaction fees for secure transactions and providing wallet tools to facilitate the transition.

However, amidst these technical deliberations, concerns are raised about the practicality and user adoption of such transitions. Skepticism exists regarding whether wallets would adapt to PQ-compatible systems, despite acknowledging a growing interest in PQC within the Bitcoin ecosystem. The discourse suggests that while short-term wallet users might overlook the necessity for PQC, those with long-term storage needs could prioritize PQC compatibility, potentially driving demand towards wallets offering such features. This discussion reflects a broader consensus on the need for a carefully managed transition that balances innovation with ensuring user confidence and trust in their assets' stability and value.

The overarching narrative indicates a community grappling with the challenges of future-proofing Bitcoin against quantum threats, exploring solutions that range from technical innovations to strategic forks. These conversations highlight a critical phase in Bitcoin's evolution, where the balance between advancing technology and maintaining an equitable, stable network forms the core of the debate.