Freezing BTC on legacy addresses (non QC-resistant) with BIP-361

[Abiky]

I've read about this new proposal from the Bitcoin Core development team, which aims to freeze Bitcoin stored on legacy addresses if they're not "upgraded" to a Quantum-Resistant address on-time. More info about that here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/bitcoin-developers-propose-quantum-plan

Does that mean long-term collectors of loaded physical Bitcoin collectibles (particularly, slabbed/graded coins) are at risk? Because such a move would force collectors to break the slabs just to redeem the Bitcoin inside the loaded collectible (like a Casascius for instance). Talk about inconvenience.

What do you think about this? Will it gain the approval of the community? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[philipma1957]

I've read about this new proposal from the Bitcoin Core development team, which aims to freeze Bitcoin stored on legacy addresses if they're not "upgraded" to a Quantum-Resistant address on-time. More info about that here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/bitcoin-developers-propose-quantum-plan

Does that mean long-term collectors of loaded physical Bitcoin collectibles (particularly, slabbed/graded coins) are at risk? Because such a move would force collectors to break the slabs just to redeem the Bitcoin inside the loaded collectible (like a Casascius for instance). Talk about inconvenience.

What do you think about this? Will it gain the approval of the community? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

It is interesting to see if old legacy coins and other legacy products will need peeling.


Not sure about it passing time will tell.

I do feel better about not having any rare older pieces that I will now need to dump.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

I've read about this new proposal from the Bitcoin Core development team, which aims to freeze Bitcoin stored on legacy addresses if they're not "upgraded" to a Quantum-Resistant address on-time. More info about that here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/bitcoin-developers-propose-quantum-plan

This one is a stupid Bitcoin Upgrade Proposal I have ever known as it is severely against the most important thing from Bitcoin blockchain: full control, no censorship, no fund freeze by anyone else rather than the coin owners. It's simply like it's your key, it's your coin, and nobody can freeze your coins.

Does that mean long-term collectors of loaded physical Bitcoin collectibles (particularly, slabbed/graded coins) are at risk? Because such a move would force collectors to break the slabs just to redeem the Bitcoin inside the loaded collectible (like a Casascius for instance). Talk about inconvenience.

If it is passed, it will affect many people, not only collectors.

Because people can have bitcoins stored in their very old wallets and they even don't know about this BIP so that they won't upgrade their wallet softwares and move their coins from old wallets (with Legacy format) to new wallets.

It can affect people who use nLock time for Bitcoin inheritance.

If this BIP is passed, Bitcoin will be no longer Bitcoin we have ever known and will become dangerous thing like stable coins.
Most Stablecoins Can Be Frozen, Even in Your Own Wallets.

Bitcoin is better than altcoins and stablecoins so don't degrade it to something like stablecoins.

[nc50lc]

For clarification to some readers:
What they meant by "legacy" isn't limited to P2PK and P2PKH scriptPubkeys.
They mean the long/short range QC attack-vulnerable scripts that we're using now including SegWit and Taproot.
In short: legacy = non-QC-resistant

And additionally to those who don't want to read the full article, there's an under development contingency plan: "Phase C",
Which aims to include a way to spend those UTXO that's can't be spend after Phase B.

I can't comment on this since the BIP is still incomplete.
But depending on how they implement Phase C, this could turn into one the best or worst anti-QC proposal.

[BitGoba]

I've read about this new proposal from the Bitcoin Core development team, which aims to freeze Bitcoin stored on legacy addresses if they're not "upgraded" to a Quantum-Resistant address on-time. More info about that here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/bitcoin-developers-propose-quantum-plan

Does that mean long-term collectors of loaded physical Bitcoin collectibles (particularly, slabbed/graded coins) are at risk? Because such a move would force collectors to break the slabs just to redeem the Bitcoin inside the loaded collectible (like a Casascius for instance). Talk about inconvenience.

What do you think about this? Will it gain the approval of the community? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I think the word “freeze” is the wrong one. Nobody’s money will be frozen. I haven’t looked at the proposal, but the most realistic approach would probably be to give everyone  15 years to move to quantum-resistant addresses.After that period, any Bitcoin that remains on older addresses would no longer be usable.

An alternative would be to keep it accessible, allowing anyone to move it in 30 or 50 years once it becomes possible to unlock it with quantum technology. That would be similar to today, when someone discovers an old shipwreck that was carrying 100 tons of gold at the bottom of the ocean.

Since we are still early and Bitcoin is at the beginning of its monetization process, this second option could cause significant market disruptions.

[nc50lc]

I haven’t looked at the proposal, but the most realistic approach would probably be to give everyone  15 years to move to quantum-resistant addresses.After that period, any Bitcoin that remains on older addresses would no longer be usable.

The summarized specification is rather short, read this part of BIP361 to get a clearer picture (only nine short sentences)
Link: github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0361.mediawiki#specification

TL;DR: The specs suggests to give users an average of 3 years to migrate before moving to Phase B (ECDSA/Schnorr invalidation).

But take note that BIPs aren't guaranteed to be implemented, there are already a few QC-related proposals alongside this.
And this particular BIP isn't considered final.

[Ucy]

Better to implement an additional layer of security on the Bitcoin system than this. A simple layer of security like a question no one can easily guess, with answer (that can only be known with zkp) hidden and stored on the Blockchain, could work really wel
If the security layer is enabled, and a Bitcoin owner input his private keys, the question will be asked and the answer compared with the hidden answer on the Bitcoin system via zkp.

This method will give Bitcoin owners the opportunity to enable the security feature before the qc that is very unlikely to be used against the network so soon or ever, is invented.

In regards to private keys sealed on physical coins, I think keys are supposed to be duplicated, and one or more dublicates accessible to the owner rather than the difficult-to-access keys stored and hidden in one place.

[Ambatman]

Snip

I don't know but this feels like its AI generated.
It doesn't look like something a normal human would type.

What do you think about this? Will it gain the approval of the community? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

The freezing in particular is quite a delicate area
Though the intentions might be pure
But it's like setting a precedence on censorship
With the push for the greater Good.

[nc50lc]

If the security layer is enabled, and a Bitcoin owner input his private keys, the question will be asked and the answer compared with the hidden answer on the Bitcoin system via zkp.

I think this can be applied to PhaseC where users who didn't upgraded in time can be given a chance to spend their bitcoins
And at the same time, preventing QC from spending those.
Question is, how can they implement a zero-knowledge-proof where both of the claimants (owner and QC attackers) knows or can quickly calculate the private key.

The article and this thread title's "Freezing" keyword is what makes the BIP sounds pro-censorship.
But in reality, it's aiming to include a way to spend every invalidated UTXO spends through its 3rd phase.

And in that regard, don't you think it's better to migrate to a QC-resistant signature and then make that "security layer" a way to spend "frozen" funds instead?
Because it's what the BIP is aiming for.
Unfortunately, PhaseC is under development and that's the most complicated part of it.

[zasad@]

BIP 361 states that
"As of March 1, 2026, over 34% of all bitcoin have revealed a public key on-chain; those UTXOs could be stolen by an attacker with a sufficiently powerful quantum computer."
No one will ever agree to such restrictions. Bitcoin will likely die if such restrictions are imposed.