A panel of leading cryptographers convened by Coinbase has recommended that the Bitcoin community begin preparations for potential quantum computing threats, despite the current absence of immediate danger. The advisory board, which includes prominent figures such as Scott Aaronson from the University of Texas and Dan Boneh from Stanford, emphasizes the importance of proactive measures in light of future vulnerabilities.
Currently, approximately 6.7 million bitcoins are considered susceptible to quantum attacks. This figure includes around 1.7 million bitcoins believed to be associated with Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, and other owners who have lost access to their keys. These early addresses utilize a pay-to-public-key format that exposes the owner’s public key directly on the blockchain, making them particularly vulnerable.
In addition to the coins linked to Nakamoto, another 5 million bitcoins are at risk due to address reuse, primarily held in exchange wallets, according to research from Project11. The panel’s report indicates that while quantum computers do not currently pose a threat, the community should not delay discussions about future-proofing Bitcoin.
The debate centers around how to handle the coins that may remain unspent in the event of a quantum attack. One faction advocates for a hard deadline after which the current signature schemes, ECDSA and Schnorr, would no longer be accepted, rendering unmigrated coins unspendable. This approach raises concerns that allowing these coins to remain accessible could provide a future attacker, potentially a state actor, with a significant amount of bitcoin, thereby destabilizing the market.
Conversely, opponents of this proposal argue that it amounts to confiscation, infringing upon the property rights that Bitcoin was designed to uphold. They caution that setting such a precedent could lead to further governmental interference in the future.
Several proposals have emerged to address these concerns. The Hourglass proposal seeks to limit the number of vulnerable coins that can be spent per block to mitigate potential market flooding. Meanwhile, BIP-361, developed by Jameson Lopp and others, would allow holders of migrated coins to prove ownership without revealing their keys. Another approach, PACTs, proposed by Dan Robinson of Paradigm, would enable owners to timestamp a private claim now and move funds later without disclosing any information at present.
While the Coinbase advisory board refrains from endorsing any specific proposal, it acknowledges that these strategies could be implemented in conjunction. The board emphasizes the necessity of initiating technical migration planning immediately, as this aspect is distinct from the governance debate regarding unspent coins.
“While the council takes no position on the abandoned coins debate, that’s for the community to decide, they are direct about two things: Start the technical migration work now. The engineering work to support post-quantum signatures is independent of the governance debate and shouldn’t wait for it,” the report states.
Additionally, the board highlights the importance of clear communication within the community, stating, “Users need to know this problem is being taken seriously. Uncertainty is its own risk.” As discussions around these proposals continue, the urgency to act remains a common thread, contrasting Bitcoin’s current inaction with Ethereum’s years of preparation.
A Coinbase advisory panel of cryptographers has urged the Bitcoin community to begin preparations for potential quantum computing threats. While no immediate danger exists, the board emphasizes the need for technical migration planning and clear communication regarding the future of vulnerable coins.