Against Allowing Quantum Recovery of Bitcoin

The discussion revolves around the complex issue of quantum sovereignty in the Bitcoin ecosystem, emphasizing that merely possessing quantum sovereignty might be futile if it leads to the entire system being compromised. The conversation touches on the controversial idea of forking the Bitcoin protocol to confiscate funds deemed vulnerable to quantum attacks. This approach, although radical and fraught with ethical dilemmas, is presented as a measure to preemptively protect the ecosystem by giving stakeholders ample time to secure their assets against potential quantum threats.

The argument unfolds by challenging the notion of theft in the context of proactive security measures. The point made is that traditional forms of asset confiscation or theft do not provide victims with any warning, contrasting with the proposed strategy which aims at freezing funds temporarily to prevent quantum-enabled theft. Such an intervention, albeit aggressive, is suggested as a lesser evil compared to the unannounced theft by quantum attackers. The discourse suggests that this temporary inconvenience could pave the way for developing and implementing quantum-safe recovery schemes, underscoring the need for extensive research and dialogue within the community to explore viable solutions.

Furthermore, the conversation highlights the inherent sluggishness in achieving consensus within the Bitcoin community, portraying the exploration of forced fund freezing as a necessary evil to catalyze action against quantum vulnerabilities. The ultimate goal mentioned is to encourage a holistic transition of the ecosystem towards quantum resilience without exclusively relying on consensus for a recovery scheme. This proactive stance is advocated in favor of waiting passively for a consensus on how to handle quantum-vulnerable funds, which could potentially expose the ecosystem to significant risks.