A Post Quantum Migration Proposal

The discourse surrounding the potential for quantum attacks on Bitcoin highlights a complex and uncertain future, where distinguishing between genuine and fabricated quantum threats may become increasingly challenging. These concerns stem from the recognition that attackers, driven by various motivations, might seek to undermine trust in Bitcoin not just for financial gain but also to inflict broader harm on the ecosystem. The unique proposition of freezing coins as a preemptive measure against such attacks introduces a nuanced debate about the incentives it creates. Specifically, there's an apprehension that failing to freeze coins vulnerable to quantum decryption could inadvertently encourage both malicious entities to claim false quantum capabilities and victims of unrelated security breaches to misattribute their losses to quantum hacks.

This conversation delves into hypothetical scenarios where attackers exploit long-dormant, quantum-vulnerable Bitcoin outputs. By publicly announcing an impending quantum attack and then spending these outputs, they could fabricate evidence of their quantum capabilities. Such actions, especially when combined with strategic market maneuvers like short selling Bitcoin, could spark widespread panic and precipitate a flurry of activity as Bitcoin holders rush to secure their assets. This scenario illustrates the practical challenges in discerning genuine quantum threats from strategically orchestrated hoaxes designed to manipulate market perceptions and valuations.

Furthermore, the dialogue touches upon the possible future in which significant exchange hacks are obfuscated behind the veil of purported quantum attacks. In such instances, exchanges might attribute breaches to quantum tactics to deflect blame and mitigate reputational damage. This strategy could also serve a dual purpose by enabling these entities to purchase Bitcoin at depressed prices during the ensuing panic, only to later reveal alternative explanations for the security lapses.

The underlying consensus within this discussion is the critical need for a defensive stance against potential quantum threats, underscored by the acknowledgment that definitive proof against the feasibility of a quantum attack - primarily through the precautionary freezing of vulnerable coins - is necessary. This approach is positioned as a bulwark against the proliferation of unfounded quantum attack claims, which could otherwise gain traction in the absence of clear, technical rebuttals. The narrative encapsulates a broader contemplation of the evolving landscape of digital currency security, underscoring the intricate interplay between technological vulnerabilities, market dynamics, and the human elements of trust and perception.