A Bitcoin Core developer has proposed setting up traps for quantum hackers

[oll]

Corey Fields has proposed a draft of an idea in which he contemplates creating a mechanism that penalizes any attempt to steal funds using a quantum computer by paying a reward to whoever proves it. He proposes enabling new validation rules on Q-day. He suggests using a trap mechanism that can be set in advance to prevent a quantum thief. This involves transactions with hidden proof of ownership, which is revealed when a thief attempts to steal the coins. This would result in the thief losing their funds, making it clear that the owner of the trap is even interested in the thief being caught this way. The thief cannot detect the trap in advance, since before it is triggered, the trap appears to be a normal, small, secure UTXO.

https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/ARMwWdWcz9A?pli=1

[Vod]

Corey Fields has proposed a draft of an idea in which he contemplates creating a mechanism that penalizes any attempt to steal funds using a quantum computer by paying a reward to whoever proves it. He proposes enabling new validation rules on Q-day. He suggests using a trap mechanism that can be set in advance to prevent a quantum thief. This involves transactions with hidden proof of ownership, which is revealed when a thief attempts to steal the coins. This would result in the thief losing their funds, making it clear that the owner of the trap is even interested in the thief being caught this way. The thief cannot detect the trap in advance, since before it is triggered, the trap appears to be a normal, small, secure UTXO.

Interesting - I hope this would not be added to the bitcoin protocol, as it just opens up another attack surface.   Bitcoin scammers aren't all independent - I don't know the specs of the new protocol (obviously), but if the protocol involves moving coin from person A to person B, it can be abused.

[nc50lc]

-snip- but if the protocol involves moving coin from person A to person B, it can be abused.

In quantum-landmine's case, the vulnerable UTXO aren't meant to be moved by anyone pre q-day.
The owner just have to create a "proof" that he can then use (post q-day) to spend the output of the transaction that attempted to spend his vulnerable UTXO.

The issue here is the collateral, even the owner needs to include a same-amount UTXO as a collateral.
This will probably be an issue with legacy UTXO with high amounts.

IDK about the versions of "Vulnerable Coin Auction" though, there might be a better way as the author implies.

[BlackHatCoiner]

All these "solutions" create new problems, complicate things, and make Bitcoin less of censorship-resistant money, just for the sake of avoiding a "price crash".

In my opinion, we should just let the first quantum computer take them, and if he wishes to sell them on spot, so be it. People should be prepared for the scenario that Satoshi returns and sells them all.