Will Bitcoin Hardfork over Quantum?

[Agiravax]

Given high tradeoffs involved by quantum signatures introduction and their impact on blockspace, would governance fractures up to making a Hardfork looks like the actual most viable alternative path?

It is expected Bitcoin to ossify into narratives and congestion to become "Institutional Digital Gold"

But wouldn't this only price most users out, centralizing them inside L2s with no more real sovereignty, practical self custody and under potential censorship? Wouldn't game theory out of it only result into many moving to other chains instead?

Isn't a Hardfork of blockspace to maintain accessibility and sovereignty a better expected outcome to maintain Bitcoin relevant over the next decades?

Wouldn't most nodes while confronted to this ultimate step of indroducing signatures refuse it and end up going for the Hardfork instead by fear of loosing their sovereignty?

If so, will ETFs issuers even survive if the legacy version is leftover and turn worthless?

Would the unexpected Hardfork path allow to free Bitcoin from Wallstreet then?

How do you this this playing out as other chains upgrade?

Will most go for the "Institutional Digital Gold" softfork version or rather opt for the "Sovereign Hard Money" hardfork version?

Could this be the next Wallstreet bet opportunity out Bitcoin?

[hmbdofficial]

Given high tradeoffs involved by quantum signatures introduction and their impact on blockspace, would governance fractures up to making a Hardfork looks like the actual most viable alternative path?

It is expected Bitcoin to ossify into narratives and congestion to become "Institutional Digital Gold"

But wouldn't this only price most users out, centralizing them inside L2s with no more real sovereignty, practical self custody and under potential censorship? Wouldn't game theory out of it only result into many moving to other chains instead?

Isn't a Hardfork of blockspace to maintain accessibility and sovereignty a better expected outcome to maintain Bitcoin relevant over the next decades?

Wouldn't most nodes while confronted to this ultimate step of indroducing signatures refuse it and end up going for the Hardfork instead by fear of loosing their sovereignty?

If so, will ETFs issuers even survive if the legacy version is leftover and turn worthless?

Would the unexpected Hardfork path allow to free Bitcoin from Wallstreet then?

How do you this this playing out as other chains upgrade?

Will most go for the "Institutional Digital Gold" softfork version or rather opt for the "Sovereign Hard Money" version?

Could this be the next Wallstreet bet opportunity out Bitcoin?

This may be off point to some extent I’ve just heard enough of quantum threats i dont just know why I honestly expunged any thread/post  that has quantum in it from my brain at this point…is it only me that feels this way I guess I’m not alone in this ?

[xbetz.io]

A hardfork purely to address future quantum concerns seems unlikely unless there is a clear, imminent cryptographic break. Historically, Bitcoin has preferred softforks and long transition periods where possible. If quantum-resistant signatures become necessary, a slow opt-in migration would likely be favored over a contentious hardfork, especially given the coordination risk and economic fragmentation that would follow. Blockspace pressure and L2 reliance are separate but related issues and governance history suggests Bitcoin tends to ossify first and only change under clear existential pressure.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

@OP,
Please take a little time to scan through this area. This topic has been repeatedly discussed ad-nausem here.... We don't need yet another thread about it...  

[Agiravax]

A hardfork purely to address future quantum concerns seems unlikely unless there is a clear, imminent cryptographic break. Historically, Bitcoin has preferred softforks and long transition periods where possible. If quantum-resistant signatures become necessary, a slow opt-in migration would likely be favored over a contentious hardfork, especially given the coordination risk and economic fragmentation that would follow. Blockspace pressure and L2 reliance are separate but related issues and governance history suggests Bitcoin tends to ossify first and only change under clear existential pressure.

Wouldn't a protective contentious Harfork happens anyway right before any attempt to insert quantum signatures scheme (whether via deffered activation or other discussed mechanism) as buying time won't change the final outcome of congestion and ultimate loss of sovereignty only delay it?

Many could also fear the "opt-in" never ends up being slow and congestion is quickly achieved afterwards anyway.

Since introducing signatures is a very disruptive event and consensus may never be met, an Hardfork would still have to go through first anyway to free governance from those against the softfork.

So it seems inevitable if consensus is stucked while under the pressure of other chains upgrading and becoming safer store of value first.

Then, what if the majority eventually just favor the Hardfork and recognize it as the real quantum Bitcoin ?

[BlackHatCoiner]

It will without doubt hardfork to a quantum-resistant algorithm, at some point. The real questions are (1) which algorithm that is (2) how many years it will take and (3) whether vulnerable coins will be frozen or not.

Please take a little time to scan through this area. This topic has been repeatedly discussed ad-nausem here.... We don't need yet another thread about it... 

I've noticed you're writing the same thing at every quantum related thread. Have you actually used either the search bar or the Google search bar to find anything you've been looking for? Try searching for "quantum hardfork" and see yourself why every newbie is asking the same question.

[suzanne5223]

We cant be sure if it's indeed the Wall Street next bet opportunity out of Bitcoin or if the ETF issuers will survive since there's no full information or decision about the fork, but  I believe the fork will eventually happen to the Bitcoin network and I expect it to softfork due to the Quantum.
I just hope the fork will freeze Satoshi's 1M BTC to prevent future complications.

[Agiravax]

@OP,
Please take a little time to scan through this area. This topic has been repeatedly discussed ad-nausem here.... We don't need yet another thread about it...  

There is no clear path towards quantum resistance for Bitcoin this is the bottom line.
Quantum signatures are very disruptive and eventually a sacrifice of sovereignty.
So all discussions are now focused on how to minimize or delay impact.
But disruption is still real and outcomes same even if delayed.

Only credible path forward is inaction.
Until other chains upgrade, (will call it "rushed" but start taking hardforks attempts over value erosion)
Up to the point it has lost relevance or has been quantum drained.

Given this context, any long term commitment to Bitcoin seems foolish.

[d5000]

Quantum signatures are very disruptive and eventually a sacrifice of sovereignty.

If I understood your OP correctly, you're worried about the impact of quantum signatures like SPHINCS+ on block space. And yes, that's definitely a valid concern.

However, we always have to take into account that even if such signatures are introduced (that would not need a hard fork), it's not necessary at all to make them mandatory, until a specific point in time: when quantum computers are so fast that they can apply Shor's algorithm to a public key in 10 minutes. Until then, quantum signatures can be purely optional.

That needs and incredibly powerful quantum computer. If we see Shor's algorithm in action, then we'll first see "hacks" where old coins were stolen. But even if Bitcoin devs wanted to prevent that, they can simply ban P2PK and similar techniques.

And even if that happens, Lightning, Ark, the tBTC (Threshold Network) sidechain mechanism and other second layers will ensure enough capacity for a blockspace hardfork being unnecessary.

It's even possible to introduce a new field like the Witness field in 2017 (a "QuantumSignatures" field) which could even be prunable, with a new soft fork similar to Segwit. We would then simply decide that QuantumSignatures only have a weight of 1/10th of the normal ECDSA Witnesses. That would impact in bandwidth, but not lead to additional consensus challenges.

[BlackHatCoiner]

However, we always have to take into account that even if such signatures are introduced (that would not need a hard fork), it's not necessary at all to make them mandatory, until a specific point in time: when quantum computers are so fast that they can apply Shor's algorithm to a public key in 10 minutes. Until then, quantum signatures can be purely optional.

Quantum computers don't have to apply Shor's algo in 10 minutes. A more primary problem than double-spending unconfirmed transactions is to take the coins of an address that is reused. I don't see this being discussed often, but it is a major issue in bitcoin. People reuse addresses all the time. Even big exchanges, with thousands of bitcoin. There's an enormous pile of work in most wallets to disable reusing addresses, and besides that, reusing addresses can actually provide utility in some cases.

[Agiravax]

However, we always have to take into account that even if such signatures are introduced (that would not need a hard fork), it's not necessary at all to make them mandatory, until a specific point in time: when quantum computers are so fast that they can apply Shor's algorithm to a public key in 10 minutes. Until then, quantum signatures can be purely optional.

As mentioned delaying the congestion doesn't change the later blockspace nuke outcome while custodian, CEX and Treasury will all upgrade asap anyway for risk management.

That needs and incredibly powerful quantum computer. If we see Shor's algorithm in action, then we'll first see "hacks" where old coins were stolen. But even if Bitcoin devs wanted to prevent that, they can simply ban P2PK and similar techniques.

Bitcoin compete only with other chains becoming quantum safe and better store of value first. It will loose relevance and face liquidity erosion if not Hardforking Blocksize to upgrade as no consensus will be found on disruptive softfork (signature introduction event)

And even if that happens, Lightning, Ark, the tBTC (Threshold Network) sidechain mechanism and other second layers will ensure enough capacity for a blockspace hardfork being unnecessary.

Because of the high congestion resulting from the softfork all those will ultimately force high centralization within shared lighting channels under potential censorship of centralized operators while having no real self custody.
If mainchain is not accessible to all anymore that only means sovereignty is lost for most but Institutions.

Softfork just doesn't look very great really