A Post Quantum Migration Proposal

The discourse on the feasibility of quantum computers in breaking cryptographic primitives highlights a significant skepticism within the scientific and technological communities. Despite advancements in quantum computing, the capability to undermine cryptographic systems remains theoretical rather than practical. The argument posits that while algorithms exist that could potentially compromise cryptographic security through advanced analog computers or even concepts as far-fetched as utilizing multiple universes for brute force attacks, these ideas remain largely speculative. The skepticism is rooted in the current state of quantum computing hardware, which, despite claims of progress, has yet to demonstrate any cryptographic relevance. The capabilities of existing hardware, when evaluated against the benchmarks necessary for impacting cryptography, are deemed negligible.

Furthermore, this discussion brings to light the divide within the physics community regarding the physical realizability of quantum computers with cryptographic relevance. A portion of the community, particularly those involved in the development or sale of quantum computing technologies, maintains a more optimistic outlook on the potential physical realization of such devices. In contrast, a broader consensus appears to question their feasibility, considering these advancements as not yet physically achievable. This ongoing debate underscores the notion that concerns regarding quantum computing's impact on cryptography are based on uncertainties and theoretical possibilities rather than imminent threats.

The conclusion drawn from this analysis suggests a cautious approach to the idea of preemptively responding to these speculative threats by freezing digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies. The recommendation implies that until there is clearer, less speculative progress in the field of quantum computing, especially in aspects directly relevant to cryptography, decisive actions such as freezing people's coins would be premature. For further reading on this topic, Peter Todd provides insights at https://petertodd.org.