On February 11th, Chilean Bitconner developer Agustinculus Bitcoin Development Mailing List (Bitcoindev), a discussion forum managed through Google, and a proposal aimed at protecting Bitcoin (BTC) from future threats that Quantum Computing may represent.
The initiative called “Resistance to Director’s Transition Protocol Quantic Computation” (QRAMP) is sought. Transition of required funds Heading in a direction that is resistant to quantum attacks.
Discussion of quantum threats
Cryptootics previously reported that the impact of quantum computing on Bitcoin is a recurring theme between analysts and experts. Most people agree with that This advancement in technology is realthe ability to compromise Bitcoin’s crypto security system, known as ECDSA, still seems far away.
In that sense, to highlight the example, Blockstreams co-founder Adam Back said that “one to 20 years” is missing because quantum computers have the potential to break Bitcoin encryption, but other experts say that as a “two to 5 years” period,
Additionally, other anti-anticipated projects have appeared in Bitcoin, such as the idea of Jameson Llop, a Bitcoiner software engineer who is intended to “burn BTC vulnerable to Quantum.”
Forced migration as a solution
The Cruz initiative, detailed in the document submitted to Github, focuses on a clear purpose.
“The purpose of this proposal is to protect Bitcoin from future quantum attacks by imposing a required transition period for funds of inherited Bitcoin addresses (insured by ECDSA) on quantum-resistant addresses.”
Agustín Cruz, Bitcoiner developer.
ECDSA, or the digital signature algorithm for elliptic curves, is the mechanism used by Bitcoin to ensure that transactions are only signed Legitimate owner of private keyensuring the integrity and reliability of each move of funds on the network. However, the theoretical possibility that quantum computers will ultimately destroy this system motivates proposals by Cruz et al.
Proposal establishes a Required transition period Meanwhile, users will need to transfer funds from traditional ECDSA addresses to new talent addresses. Once this period ends, the old direction becomes obsolete and unrelocated funds can become vulnerable in future quantum scenarios.
This approach starts with a technical premise: Quantum Computers, through algorithms like Shor’s, Future Delifer Private Key From public keys exposed to the network, today it is virtually impossible with a classic computer. In Bitcoin, public keys are only revealed if unused addresses, protected only by hash, mean that they remain secure for now.
Chilean developers argue that Quantum threat is not imminentActing proactively is essential to keeping Bitcoin security as a network and Bitcoin trust as active.
Addresses based on anti-chaptography
Cruz proposes a hard fork that implements a new type of orientation based on quarantine encryption. This change Means replacing ECDSA By algorithms that are said to be resistant to quantum attacks, such as those based on reticle and hash companies that do not rely on mathematical problems that quantum computers can solve efficiently.
His proposal on Github shows Cruz stands out among Hash-based companies in XMS (Extended Merkle Signature Scheme) and LMS (Leighton-Micali Signature System). These algorithms use a Merkle tree structure. This is a technique for organizing signatures or keys within a hierarchy that can be verified through a hash.
“This BIP introduces a new type of orientation designed to be safe in the face of quantum computing threats, ensuring that Bitcoin remains a long-term, reliable value reserve,” Cruz explains in his document.
Technical details and challenges
Cruz’s documents not only raise encryption changes, but also address the technical implications of their implementation. Tendo’s algorithm is safer in the face of quantum computing, but it tends to generate more companies and keys than current algorithms.
This could increase the size of Bitcoin transactions. It affects scalability. To mitigate that inconvenience, Cruz proposes optimizations that can be developed during the community consensus process.
Another challenge that developers present is broad agreement among network participants. “The success of this proposal depends on community consensus and coordinated actions between miners, nodes and wallet suppliers,” Cruz says.
By definition, it is necessary for a hard branch All nodes update softwareAnd the lack of support could fragment networks, as in the case of Bitcoin Cash in 2017, a risk that Bitcoin has faced before.
While the Bitconner community consensus on the urgency of this change is far from being achieved, Chileans argue that acting ahead of time is key. “The strength of Bitcoin lies in its adaptability, and the preparation of current quantum threats guarantees survival as a decentralized system,” he concludes in his proposal.
