Re: Against Allowing Quantum Recovery of Bitcoin

The discussion revolves around the imperative measures required to safeguard Bitcoin in the advent of quantum computing (QC) becoming a tangible threat. The consensus leans towards implementing a freeze fork as a proactive strategy to prevent the potential demise of Bitcoin when faced with the undeniable reality or near-term possibility of quantum computing. This approach is underscored by the goal to limit the impact, aiming to freeze the minimum possible number of coins.

The challenge of adoption for any post-quantum (PQ) scheme is acknowledged, yet skepticism is expressed regarding the notion that wallets would entirely disregard the transition to PQ-compatible systems. The current sentiment and discussions surrounding PQ Bitcoin are highlighted as evidence of existing interest and demand for a transition. It's argued that while short-term wallet users might not prioritize post-quantum cryptography (PQC), those considering long-term storage solutions may view PQC compatibility as a desirable feature, thereby driving selection preferences towards wallets that support such capabilities.

Furthermore, it's emphasized that simply relying on a Nothing-Up-My-Sleeve (NUMS) point does not adequately address the issue unless a specific soft-fork is implemented to restrict spending from that NUMS point. This point underscores the assertion of significant, albeit somewhat contentious, demand for PQC within the Bitcoin community today. The skepticism towards the argument that no one intends to utilize PQC solutions for Bitcoin reflects a broader recognition of the ongoing debates and concerns within the cryptocurrency space regarding the future-proofing of Bitcoin against quantum computing threats.