Giving teeth to expected EC disabling: P2XX(-T)(-ML)

The discussion raises significant concerns regarding the viability and security of the "tripwire" approach in cryptocurrency systems, specifically in the context of Bitcoin mining and transaction reorganization (re-org). The primary issue identified is the potential for miners, especially those enabled by CRQC (Coordinated Rational Quantum Computing), to deliberately omit certain transactions ("flag" transactions) from the blockchain. This action would effectively neutralize the enforcement mechanism intended by the EC (Elliptic Curve) disabling threshold, rendering it ineffectual.

In an analysis of economic incentives, it appears that global miners have historically earned around $20 billion annually from transaction fees alone. Given that P2PK (Pay to Public Key) transactions could be permanently affected by the tripwire logic—which may never transition to a more secure format—the stakes are particularly high, involving up to 1.7 million bitcoins valued at approximately $107 billion. This sum represents a substantial portion of potential revenue for miners, suggesting a strong financial motive to manipulate the transaction ledger to their advantage.

Furthermore, the email argues against the reliability of other security measures such as "checkpoints" or developer-dependent solutions, highlighting them as even less secure than the tripwire method. The potential for covert actions by miners, possibly anonymous due to advanced cryptographic techniques like leveraging Shor's algorithm, adds another layer of complexity to the trust model in decentralized networks.

Lastly, the possibility of implementing a "soft fork" to counteract any negative impacts of the tripwire logic is suggested. This would involve specific script manipulations using operations like OP_SUCCESS before an EC CHECKSIG operation, which could theoretically restore validity to certain transactions despite earlier tripwire-triggered changes. However, the use of undefined operations within scripts poses its own risks, indicating that the solution might not be straightforward or entirely safe.

These points collectively underscore the intricate balance between securing cryptographic assets and maintaining a fair, predictable mining landscape where long-term strategies do not undermine the foundational principles of the blockchain.