Against Allowing Quantum Recovery of Bitcoin

The discussion revolves around the nuanced considerations of employing timelocks on cryptocurrency assets, particularly in relation to the potential vulnerabilities and strategic limitations these mechanisms introduce. A critical point raised is the security of timelocked coins that have yet to expose their public keys until the moment they are spent. The argument posits that, for quantum computers to exploit such a scenario by reverse-engineering a key to replace-by-fee (RBF) a transaction while it remains in the mempool, would necessitate a significant leap in quantum computing capabilities. This observation underscores an often-underappreciated risk associated with setting extremely long timelocks: the exposure to specific protocol weaknesses that could necessitate the migration of funds to maintain security.

Another dimension of this discussion highlights the personal apprehension towards committing funds into long-term timelocks, suggesting a cautious approach of limiting such locks to a year or two at most. This perspective is rooted in the recognition of the dynamic nature of cryptocurrency protocols and the unforeseen challenges that might emerge over longer periods. Additionally, the conversation touches upon the economic and governance implications of long timelocks, particularly how they might inhibit an investor's ability to respond to controversial chain forks by "voting with their feet." This term metaphorically represents the action of moving one’s investment to align with preferred protocol versions or forks, thereby influencing the direction of cryptocurrency development and governance through market forces.

This discourse, shared among members of the Bitcoin Development Mailing List, encapsulates the intricate balance between leveraging cryptographic advancements for enhancing security and the practical considerations of maintaining flexibility and adaptability in the fast-evolving landscape of blockchain technology.