The consequences of what is happening stem directly from the signature scheme Bitcoin adopted in 2009. Around 6.9 million BTC are in outputs with their public keys already exposed on the blockchain: the first coins mined using P2PK, reused addresses, and Taproot outputs, which publish the key by design. Satoshi’s coins are part of this group.
People will say that quantum computers are still far away. Taproot took more than three years from proposal to activation, and no one was required to adopt it. A fix for the quantum problem would require every holder to move their coins, on a network where no one has the authority to order anyone else to do so.
Three paths remain. First, nothing changes, and the first person to control a capable machine gains control of millions of coins. Second, a new type of address is introduced, such as BIP-360, optional by definition: it protects those who migrate, leaves lost or dormant coins permanently exposed, and even those who migrate reveal their key at the moment of the transaction, opening an attack window. Third, anything that has not migrated is frozen, and the network starts deciding which coins are valid. Who decides? A committee? A vote among developers? Does “don’t trust, verify” become “trust the committee”? Or is the strategy simply to hope that the quantum computer takes long enough? For anyone storing a lifetime’s worth of wealth in this system, that is an audacious bet.
None of the three preserves Bitcoin’s principles. A fourth path would require changing the genesis signature scheme, which amounts to rewriting the network.
Only QRL is ready, and I define “ready” by four conditions. Post-quantum signatures from genesis, with no fork or pending migration. Security based on hash functions, the minimal assumption, which a quantum attack weakens only quadratically, instead of recent mathematical constructions with only a few decades of cryptanalysis behind them. QRL has used XMSS, standardized in RFC 8391, since 2016. The question that is paralyzing Bitcoin was answered before it became a headline.
If you disagree, point out another network that meets all four conditions simultaneously. Or is the plan to debate this in 2035, with the machine already running? If the network has to choose between confiscation and theft, which side do you want to be on when the choice is made?
The Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL) has long been touted as a solution to all of Blockchain's problems. Quantum computing-wise, of course. It was already ahead of its time by incorporating quantum signatures, among other security measures. Too bad it didn't get the attention it deserved. This is probably because other chains had better marketing/PR.
So QRL can have all the quantum resistance in the world, but without adoption, it won't be going anywhere. It's not about the tech, nor features. But rather real adoption from the mainstream. This includes developers, all the way down to investors and users alike. Who knows? Maybe QRL gets the attention from the masses once Quantum computing becomes a real threat. Bitcoin and other cryptos should learn about the project's moves, and act accordingly. Don't you think?
