Against Allowing Quantum Recovery of Bitcoin

In a recent discussion among developers regarding the response to potential quantum computing threats to Bitcoin, a significant concern was raised about the legal ramifications of making code changes that could lead to the confiscation of funds. The debate centers around the ethical and legal implications of developers implementing changes that preemptively secure the Bitcoin network against quantum attacks but at the same time, could result in the loss of user funds if not handled with extreme caution. This concern is particularly poignant given the history of legal challenges faced by Bitcoin and the potential for substantial financial liabilities that developers could incur personally.

The suggestion put forward to mitigate such risks involves a cautious approach that would only affect unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) which are likely already lost—specifically, those that have not been moved for an extended period, estimated at 15-20 years. This proposal aims to balance the need for proactive security measures against quantum computing threats with the imperative to minimize legal exposure and possible repercussions for the developers involved. It also underlines the importance of not disrupting UTXOs that could be subject to future access through mechanisms like timelocks, ensuring that any protective measures do not inadvertently lock users out of their legitimate assets.

Moreover, the conversation touches on the philosophical aspect of responsibility within a permissionless system like Bitcoin. While developers can and should make efforts to transition the network to post-quantum cryptography (PQC) to safeguard against quantum attacks, the onus ultimately falls on users to adapt to these changes. The point made is that in a system designed around the principle of self-sovereignty, users who choose to continue utilizing non-PQC addresses, even after the availability of safer alternatives, bear the responsibility for their choices. This stance emphasizes the role of individual decision-making in the context of emerging technological threats and the limits of developer intervention in a decentralized ecosystem.