Connect with us

Bip

Bitcoin Developer Proposes Big Changes to Future-Proof BTC From Quantum Threats

Published

on



Bitcoin could be headed for its most sweeping cryptographic overhaul yet if a new proposal gains traction.

A draft Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) titled Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAMP) has been introduced by developer Agustin Cruz. It outlines a plan to enforce a network-wide migration of BTC from legacy wallets to ones secured by post-quantum cryptography.

Quantum computing involves moving away from a process reliant on binary code, ones and zeros, and exponentially increasing computing power by employing Quantum bits (qubits) that exist in multiple states simultaneously. Such a jump in power is expected to threaten modern computing encryption built by classic machines.

The proposal suggests that after a predetermined block height, nodes running the updated software would reject any transaction trying to spend coins from an address using ECDSA cryptography, which could theoretically make it vulnerable to quantum attacks.

A hard fork debate

Bitcoin currently relies on algorithms, including SHA-256 for mining and the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) for signatures. Per Cruz, legacy addresses that haven’t yet transacted are protected by additional layers, while those that have exposed their public keys—necessary to conduct transactions—may now be vulnerable “if sufficiently powerful quantum computers emerge.”

The move would require a hard fork, which is likely going to be a tall ask from the community. A hard fork refers to a change to a blockchain that renders an older version incompatible.

“I admire the effort but this will still leave everyone who doesn’t migrate’s coins vunerable, including Satoshi’s coins,” said one Reddit user about the new proposal.

“Bitcoin could implement a post quantum security for all coins but that would need a hard fork, which due to bitcoin’s history and the mantra repeated by maxis that would create a new coin and would not be bitcoin anymore.”

Read more: The Blocksize Wars Revisited: How Bitcoin’s Civil War Still Resonates Today

Preventive measure

The proposed solution sets a migration deadline to lock those funds unless they’re moved to a more secure wallet. This proposal isn’t a response to any imminent breakthrough in quantum computing. Instead, it’s a preventive measure, yet it comes a little over a month after Microsoft unveiled Majorana 1, a quantum processing unit designed to scale to a million qubits per chip.

During a migration window, users would still be able to move funds freely. The BIP calls for wallet developers, block explorers and “other infrastructure” to build tools and warnings to help users comply.

After the deadline, non-upgraded nodes could fork from the network if they continue accepting legacy transactions.

This is not the first time someone has suggested a mechanism to defend Bitcoin from quantum computing threats. Most recently, BTQ, a startup working to build blockchain technology that can withstand attacks from quantum computers, has proposed an alternative to the Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm involving quantum technology.

In its research paper, BTQ proposed a method called Coarse-Grained Boson Sampling (CGBS). This process uses light particles (bosons) to generate unique patterns—samples—that reflect the blockchain’s current state instead of hash-based mathematical puzzles.

However, this proposal would also require a hard fork involving miners and nodes replacing their existing ASIC-based hardware with quantum-ready infrastructure.

Read more: Quantum Startup BTQ Proposes More Energy Efficient Alternative to Crypto’s Proof of Work





Source link

Bip

The Unit Denomination of Bitcoin Does Not Need To Change

Published

on


Follow Nikolaus On 𝕏 Here For Daily Posts

Last week, long-time Bitcoiner John Carvalho introduced a new Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) aimed at addressing the unit bias issue many people face when first finding bitcoin.

“This BIP proposes redefining the commonly recognized “bitcoin” unit so that what was previously known as the smallest indivisible unit becomes the primary reference unit,” Carvalho explains. “Under this proposal, one bitcoin is defined as that smallest unit, eliminating the need for decimal places. By making the integral unit the standard measure, this BIP aims to simplify user comprehension, reduce confusion, and align on-chain values directly with their displayed representation.”

The display of how units of bitcoin are displayed would shift from its current state to this:

Current: 1.00000000 BTC → New: 100000000 BTC

Current: 0.00500000 BTC → New: 500000 BTC

Current: 0.00010000 BTC → New: 10000 BTC

“Historically, 1 BTC = 100,000,000 base units. Under this proposal, “1 bitcoin” equals that smallest unit,” the proposal further explained.

I understand where Carvalho is coming from on this and I can visualize scenarios where some people may find this easier, but I think the thinking here is likely short sighted and doesn’t work in the grand scheme of things.

Over the years I have also heard of other Bitcoiners discussing ways to combat the unit bias of Bitcoin. It seems most Bitcoiners are primarily concerned with how new users often get immediately discouraged if they cannot afford a whole bitcoin, and tend to gravitate towards buying altcoins instead where they can buy at least 1 unit of that coin.

After acknowledging the issues he’s trying to address with this, I personally do not support this BIP. I think it would add more confusion rather than solving it. I think it is ultimately a waste of time and energy for Bitcoin developers to focus on this when there are many other things they could be working on that would add actual value to Bitcoin.

I think Stehpan Livera has had a couple really good takes on this, pointing out how silly it would actually be in practice.

Everyone involved in Bitcoin is already accustomed to how it currently is specified, so this is not a real problem most people seem to care about. Carvalho has suggested a feature be implemented where wallets and such can toggle between the current and would-be new way of displaying the units of bitcoin, so there is a transition period where users can get used to his way of specifying units of bitcoin, but I just don’t see why it would be worth making this transition.

It would just feel like a burden on everyone to start explaining this way and potentially slow adoption if anything.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement [ethereumads]

Trending

    wpChatIcon