What wil happen to old Bitcoin wallets whose private keys re considered forgoten

[Chibit01]

While replying to this thread The question on the title stroke my head.

Since one day Quantum computer development will be complete and the threat to bitcoin is already publicly being discussed, with bitcoin developers having plans ahead for an upgrade that will protect the network.

My question here is. if it comes to time when post quantum (PQC) is completed, will all bitcoins automatically be moved, or will it require being manually done individually using your wallet? If so, where do those coins sitting in wallets where private keys are considered to be lost stand? Will they be exposed to Quantum risk ? Especially if the wallet links to Satoshi.

[retaur]

Generally only addresses that have spent funds are at the highest risk. You generally need an address and a signature to be able to crack a private key using a quantum machine.

You may be able to crack a public key from an unused address and reverse engineer that to get a private key but that's extremely complex and way harder computationally than the former.

[Antidote47k]

That’s a really good question. If Bitcoin eventually adopts a post-quantum cryptographic scheme, which is still speculative, users would need to move their coins manually to new outputs because only the holder of the private key can authorize spending.
As for lost coins, those are more complicated. coins in P2PKH, P2WPKH, and P2TR outputs generally don’t reveal the public key until they are spent, so unspent outputs of these types aren’t immediately vulnerable. An attacker would first need the public key.
However, old P2PK outputs already expose the public key. If a cryptographically relevant quantum computer became a reality, those outputs would likely be among the first vulnerable.

Which brings us to another  question, should the protocol take special measures to protect or invalidate those coins, or should they simply remain subject to the same rules as every other UTXO?

[Cookdata]

My question here is. if it comes to time when post quantum (PQC) is completed, will all bitcoins automatically be moved, or will it require being manually done individually using your wallet? If so, where do those coins sitting in wallets where private keys are considered to be lost stand? Will they be exposed to Quantum risk ? Especially if the wallet links to Satoshi.

Other than wallet address that are considered to be owned by Satoshi, how sure are you the addresses you think private keys are considered forgotten to be true? You can't tell until there is a Quantum migration or permanent solution.

There is a proposed post quantum migration on Github the last time there was a high speculation about quantum threats to Bitcoin, it's a draft and contains 3 phase, the downside of this is that it involves Satoshi coins and any other coins that refused to migrate before phase B in the proposal invalid. That's something some developers didn't find interesting, there could be changes in the future or another better suggestions.

There are some other suggestions about Quantum threats that are not BIP in this forum that are funny but I think we need a solution at this point about Quantum threats even better than proposal, the solution will determine how to move forward regarding the keys that may not migrate if eventually there is a activation.

[Chibit01]

My question here is. if it comes to time when post quantum (PQC) is completed, will all bitcoins automatically be moved, or will it require being manually done individually using your wallet? If so, where do those coins sitting in wallets where private keys are considered to be lost stand? Will they be exposed to Quantum risk ? Especially if the wallet links to Satoshi.

Other than wallet address that are considered to be owned by Satoshi, how sure are you the addresses you think private keys are considered forgotten to be true? You can't tell until there is a Quantum migration or permanent solution.

I'm not sure. the statement is for context sake. In fact, I am among those that believe no private key is actually fully lost. As long as the coin is not sitting in a burn address, we have seen old forgotten wallets wake up and move its holding to another wallet, which should at least give those who consider some address key completely lost to have a rethink

[PostQuantumBTC]

There is a proposed post quantum migration on Github the last time there was a high speculation about quantum threats to Bitcoin, it's a draft and contains 3 phase, the downside of this is that it involves Satoshi coins and any other coins that refused to migrate before phase B in the proposal invalid. That's something some developers didn't find interesting, there could be changes in the future or another better suggestions.

Any proposal that will make some coins to be invalid is a bad proposal if there will be no alternative way that the invalidated coins can still later be spent by the owner, this will really make bitcoin to be centralized like other altcoins. If the developers freeze bitcoin that does not belong to them, is that not centralization?

[montaga]

What Satoshi has to say about it:

Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more.  Think of it as a donation to everyone.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=198.msg1647#msg1647

[pooya87]

As I always say to this repeated question: If the current cryptography algorithms were to be considered broken after Quantum Computers become a thing, then those algorithms must become obsolete and removed from Bitcoin protocol. In other words people should not be able to use them and any coins locked inside such a key after that deadline.

It simply doesn't make any sense to allow something broken to exist. After such a time the coins that won't move will finally be considered "truly lost" as opposed to right now that we can only consider them on HODL.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

My question here is. if it comes to time when post quantum (PQC) is completed, will all bitcoins automatically be moved

No, automatically moving bitcoins of Bitcoin owners is terrible enforcement. It's seriously centralized and Bitcoin protocol is never designed for such centralized decision and fund movements.

or will it require being manually done individually using your wallet?

It's possibly an option for Bitcoin owners and users. They are free do choose what they want to do, no mandatory requirement to do it. The fund movements must be individual decision and action, after that owners can choose to do it manually or pick a tool that help them doing it automatically.

Let's differentiate between automatic move by the protocol and automatically movement by users with tools.

If so, where do those coins sitting in wallets where private keys are considered to be lost stand?

Lost bitcoins are donations to everyone.

If I am behind quantum computer attacks, I am smart enough to don't dump all bitcoins I got from it, assuming I succeeded to break Bitcoin private keys with quantum computers, because I want to sell those coins with as highest value as possible. So cleverly selling it with time is better, that means if there are such quantum attacks, I believe that there will be no sudden massive dumps.

[Zaguru12]

then those algorithms must become obsolete and removed from Bitcoin protocol. In other words people should not be able to use them and any coins locked inside such a key after that deadline.

It simply doesn't make any sense to allow something broken to exist. After such a time the coins that won't move will finally be considered "truly lost" as opposed to right now that we can only consider them on HODL.

This is definitely what I have actually thought will happen if we eventually get the quantum attack, I think a soft fork by devs with just this same idea, give holders time to move bitcoins to quantum resistance algorithms or address I will say then the ones left on keys and didn’t move before the deadline should be treated as not lost for ever and should be unspendable outputs just like OP_Return transactions.

The only problem I will about this is would even time lock bitcoins which has specific time before there are spendable be also opened to be sent to a new quantum resistance address, if not wouldn’t they be cut up in the mix of coins truly lost forever?

What Satoshi has to say about it:

Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more.  Think of it as a donation to everyone.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=198.msg1647#msg1647

This depends on truly lost bitcoins, for now there is only burned coins that we can consider as this, not coins on keys that have been left untouched for a long period of time

[Moreno233]

What Satoshi has to say about it:

Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more.  Think of it as a donation to everyone.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=198.msg1647#msg1647

I doubt this is what the topic is about, perhaps you did not read the body of the post and responded through the caption only. The author is actually referring to the time the quantum threat becomes a reality, what will happen to wallets that have not moved their coins should their be a proposal for manual migration. I think the right answer have already been given by Cookdata.

In my view, a migration that will be considered just should be one that is automatic and done in the wallet without requiring manual migration. This way those coins owned by Satasho will not be considered lost assuming Satoshi did not show up to migrate them manually.

[pooya87]

The only problem I will about this is would even time lock bitcoins which has specific time before there are spendable be also opened to be sent to a new quantum resistance address, if not wouldn’t they be cut up in the mix of coins truly lost forever?

First read BIP-361 that was shared above. I didn't see them mention timelocked coins though.

I suppose there is an easy way to address that problem. In the first phase we need to modify the consensus rules to disallow coins to be sent to "quantum-vulnerable addresses". So in that very same soft-fork we can add a new rule to disable timelock OPs or modify how they work.

• Disabling is the easiest (lazy) approach that would leave Bitcoin without that timelock option for a long time (5 years?) but it solves the problem very easily. The user will still have to have the key and provide a signature but the locktime will be ignored.
• Modification is harder to implement but it will keep that option available. It could be like this: for example if the nLockTime was close to or beyond the final deadline (where the output become un-spendable) the interpreter can ignore it so the output can be spent without meeting the timelock condition. If the timelock was a considerable amount of time below the deadline, the locktime can be enforced and finally if the output was created after the first phase the locktime could be enforced regardless of the deadline.

[ABCbits]

My question here is. if it comes to time when post quantum (PQC) is completed, will all bitcoins automatically be moved, or will it require being manually done individually using your wallet?

Definitely manual move, you need to send Bitcoin on your current address to address that use QC-resistant cryptography. Sometimes, it means you need to create wallet because some application doesn't support to generate multiple address types.

Will they be exposed to Quantum risk ? Especially if the wallet links to Satoshi.

Only if public key key of the address/UTXO is exposed. 1 million Bitcoin that speculated mined by Satoshi were mined to P2PK "address", so those 1 million BTC are at risk.

[KiaKia]

As I always say to this repeated question: If the current cryptography algorithms were to be considered broken after Quantum Computers become a thing, then those algorithms must become obsolete and removed from Bitcoin protocol. In other words people should not be able to use them and any coins locked inside such a key after that deadline.

It simply doesn't make any sense to allow something broken to exist. After such a time the coins that won't move will finally be considered "truly lost" as opposed to right now that we can only consider them on HODL.

This will be the case of why it's bad to lock your Bitcoin or assets away for good without looking back, atleast one needs to stay online for any news update to escape this if that's what's really going to happen.

I'm sure that someone somewhere already locked their Bitcoin for some long period of time before it gets unlocked for their family members or children, they will get crushed as well.

That's not going to be so good but for now hands on fold, let's say how things will go..

[DPHOR]

There should be a solution but I do not think that would automatically affects a dead wallet, dead wallet I mean is this those addresses that we think they have lost their private or are subjected to Satoshi. Of course if Satoshi is alive he would also find solutions to it without him either moving his Bitcoin or migration.
In other hands those addresses that they have their keys lost could be considered a burnt because they had no access to it anymore in my own opinion.

[JeffBrad12]

What I know, BIP-360 will solve the exposed public key problem but it won't automatically solve old wallets problem, BIP-361 comes after that and there is proposal to freeze unmigrated funds but many are against it.
So it's still unclear what would happen but the BIP-360 upgrade won't automatically move the funds like you expected and whole community still exploring for a better solution. Let the expert find the definitive solution I guess, until then just wait and see.

[OcTradism]

As long as the coin is not sitting in a burn address, we have seen old forgotten wallets wake up and move its holding to another wallet

It is your pure speculation about in active addresses and UTXOs, while if bitcoins in those wallets were moved after a long time of inactivity, it is evidence that those bitcoins were not forgotten or lost.

They are just inactive UTXOs like you can see in the chart with different inactive times. Some of them were lost forever but some others are simply inactive and in waiting time before be active again.
https://charts.bitbo.io/hodl-waves/
https://www.bitcoinmagazinepro.com/charts/hodl-waves/

which should at least give those who consider some address key completely lost to have a rethink

Lost bitcoins are only estimated numbers like if you use different inactive cutoffs with the HODL waves chart, you will calculate different numbers of lost bitcoins. They are numbers calculated from different assumptions and cutoffs so it's more accurate to consider these figures as estimators that are not accurate surely.

Lost Bitcoin: 3.7 million Bitcoin are probably gone forever.
You see, it's just "probably", not certainly.

[tiCeR]

As I always say to this repeated question: If the current cryptography algorithms were to be considered broken after Quantum Computers become a thing, then those algorithms must become obsolete and removed from Bitcoin protocol. In other words people should not be able to use them and any coins locked inside such a key after that deadline.

It simply doesn't make any sense to allow something broken to exist. After such a time the coins that won't move will finally be considered "truly lost" as opposed to right now that we can only consider them on HODL.

If this happens and the algorithms do become obsolete and removed from bitcoin protocol, would it in theory be possible to ever reverse that operation and make lost coins accessible again? To get changes infused into the protocol, you would have to have consent of the majority of the network's stakeholders and miners, but in principle, this is not impossible, is it? If the incentive was high enough one day for a powerful group to regain access to coins deemed lost, is there a theoretical possibility for them? Since bitcoin is a social consensus system, the rules to access lost coins could be changed if the majority deems such a decision beneficial, or is that wrong? I know this is very hypothetical, but thinking about the distant future, it's just a thought experiment I am going through.

For example, if the network does not generate enough fees to incentivize miners to keep mining, could the majority of the network vote that a hard fork makes lost coins accessible in a pooled address to keep paying miners for their work?

[Son Of Blockchain (SOB)]

 The developers of Bitcoin are not sleeping, they're also preparing for the PQC attack. For instance, as the father of the family, you get info that some group of people are threatening to attack your family in future, would you just relax and allow it happen? I think no responsible father would relax about it dude.
 So, that's why i believe that they're working on upgrading all wallets against such threats whether the ones with lost seeds or forgotten, maybe they'll all be upgraded to a new address that's PQC safe, I believe it would be manually moved by ever users cause Bitcoin won't move it's to a new wallet except being authorized by a user. The devs would just leave an automatic indication for everyone to move their coin to the new wallet that's PQC safe, something like "Upgrade your wallet address".

[pooya87]

As I always say to this repeated question: If the current cryptography algorithms were to be considered broken after Quantum Computers become a thing, then those algorithms must become obsolete and removed from Bitcoin protocol. In other words people should not be able to use them and any coins locked inside such a key after that deadline.

It simply doesn't make any sense to allow something broken to exist. After such a time the coins that won't move will finally be considered "truly lost" as opposed to right now that we can only consider them on HODL.

If this happens and the algorithms do become obsolete and removed from bitcoin protocol, would it in theory be possible to ever reverse that operation and make lost coins accessible again? To get changes infused into the protocol, you would have to have consent of the majority of the network's stakeholders and miners, but in principle, this is not impossible, is it? If the incentive was high enough one day for a powerful group to regain access to coins deemed lost, is there a theoretical possibility for them? Since bitcoin is a social consensus system, the rules to access lost coins could be changed if the majority deems such a decision beneficial, or is that wrong? I know this is very hypothetical, but thinking about the distant future, it's just a thought experiment I am going through.

For example, if the network does not generate enough fees to incentivize miners to keep mining, could the majority of the network vote that a hard fork makes lost coins accessible in a pooled address to keep paying miners for their work?

Well that's a big "if" since this goes against Bitcoin Principles. Nobody should be able to take other people's coins even if they are lost. So I don't think such a proposal would ever gain majority's support. But "IF" it did, then yes anything is possible to change. Bitcoin is just code after all and you can change anything in it. For example you can make it so that you can spend any coin that is 50 years old (2059 for first blocks' reward) at block height 2628000 and receive it as its reward as the miner. But would you be able to get the majority of the network to agree to that? I don't think so.