My analysis is that it is a governance dead end.
Right now 100% of wallets are exposed.
Bitcoin first needs to find consensus on the BIP360 wrapper so it can then eventually introduce PQC signatures afterwards that are very heavy in size.
To do so, Bitcoin has only 3 options :
1) Softfork only : Direct introduction and risks extreme congestion, unstable fee market, loss of sovereignty, loss of funds, loss of L1 access, disruption in governance model and node economics or even network failure.
2) Do nothing as other chains upgrade.
3) Hardfork blocksize to remain healthy but sacrifice the immutability (Gold) narrative.
It needs 90% near unanimous consensus on either 1) or either 3) to do something.
Yet everything is a potential dead end…
Therefore, the most likely scenario under game theory is that it does nothing 2) while other chains upgrade.
Then as it is progressively loosing dominance some protective Hardforks attempts will start building up 3) until the chain splits under the pressure.
Seems to me the more reasonable outcome/scenario.
What's yours?
Is Bitcoin doomed with Quantum?
byu/Agirvax inCryptoTechnology
Posted by Agirvax
2 Comments
This is not correct: “Right now 100% of wallets are exposed.”
A wallet is only exposed if its public key is known. Today, you pay to hash of a public key, which does not reveal it, until the UTXO is spent (and signed by the corresponding private key – the public key is added to the data of the transaction).
But older wallets were using pay to public key – so their public key is visible to everyone, even without ever spending. Satoshi’s wallets are of this kind.
If people had quantum capabilities the last thing they would hit up is btc. Governments, banks, power/energy, the world would be there oyster.