Against Allowing Quantum Recovery of Bitcoin

The quantum computing debate is increasingly relevant, especially in relation to Bitcoin's security. The potential of quantum computing poses several scenarios for Bitcoin, ranging from no threat at all to a significant and sudden risk that could undermine the cryptocurrency's integrity. There's a growing discussion on how to address this possible future, particularly whether Bitcoin should transition to quantum-resistant cryptographic methods. This debate includes whether funds vulnerable to quantum decryption should be rendered inaccessible to everyone (effectively "burned") or left as they are, potentially allowing individuals with quantum computing capabilities to steal them.

One of the core values of Bitcoin is its censorship resistance, meaning no one should have the power to control how Bitcoin is used. Another is forward compatibility, ensuring changes don't invalidate previous transactions or undermine network confidence. Lastly, conservatism emphasizes minimal user intervention in response to system issues. These principles underscore the importance of self-sovereignty in Bitcoin: the idea that you should have complete control over your funds without interference. However, quantum computing challenges these fundamentals by potentially allowing attackers to break Bitcoin's cryptographic security, thus accessing funds not originally theirs.

The ethical dilemma revolves around the potential harm of each decision. Rendering quantum-vulnerable funds unspendable could harm users who fail to upgrade their wallets in time, while leaving them spendable risks much larger thefts by those with early access to quantum technology. Such theft would not only violate the principle of property rights but could also destabilize Bitcoin's value and erode trust in its security. Conversely, preventing quantum theft by making these funds unspendable might incentivize the adoption of quantum-resistant cryptography, enhancing Bitcoin's long-term security.

The discussion also touches on historical precedents, where previous protocol vulnerabilities were addressed rather than exploited. Viewing quantum theft as fair game could rewrite Bitcoin’s ethos as a secure financial system. Moreover, the prospect of quantum computers represents an unfair advantage, contradicting Bitcoin's decentralized ethos by privileging those with advanced technological access.

In terms of practical responses, there's debate about the best course of action. Some argue for a proactive approach, suggesting a migration to quantum-resistant addresses and possibly burning funds that remain vulnerable after a grace period. Others caution against hasty actions, noting the speculative nature of quantum computing threats and emphasizing Bitcoin's resilience through past challenges.

Finally, the proposal to burn quantum-vulnerable bitcoin raises questions about Bitcoin's governance and the balance between protecting the network and maintaining its decentralized, permissionless nature. The decision implicates not just technical considerations but also philosophical ones about the nature of ownership, security, and trust in the digital age.