Are We Getting Quantum-Secure Addresses Soon?

Some cryptos say they already got quantum-secure addresses. What’s the deal with Bitcoin?

There’s actually a proposal, called P2MR from BIP-360. It’s supposed to be Bitcoin's first move against quantum threats. These addresses (bc1z) keep public keys hidden by forcing transactions through scripts. They’re based on hash functions that are tougher against quantum attacks, but honestly, quantum threats aren't a worry for now.

But BIP-360 alone won't cut it. Who knows how long it’ll take for devs to pick the right QC-resistant encryption. A lot of this stuff is still pretty new and untested.

Just wondering, why are you so concerned about this, OP? I mean, we’re not even close to having quantum computers that can threaten Bitcoin. So what’s the fuss?

What about those government agencies that think 'Harvest now, decrypt later'? That could be an issue.

That doesn’t really apply to Bitcoin though. It's all public info, so they wouldn't need to do that. Plus, if they tried, the data would likely change by the time they decrypt.

It's in the works, but it’s going to take time. BIP-360 is finally in the repo, but it’s just a draft for now, only tested on testnets. Most altcoins that claim they’re 'quantum safe'… yeah, they’re just centralized nonsense. No quantum computer is close to cracking 256-bit ECDSA yet.

Totally. Those communications often use public keys that can be pulled from TLS certs or traffic. Even if they aren’t obvious scams, it’s a red flag if they focus too much on QC-resistant tech just to lure in investors.

Bunch of proposals are out there, some public, some not. You gotta know where to look instead of just falling for marketing fluff. If you keep up with the mailing lists, you’d see real work happening. A solid grasp of Bitcoin's slow evolution is key.

And the big question? Will the community actually back a proposal? I can see this turning into another long debate like SegWit took ages to settle.

I doubt it’ll be as rough as the SegWit drama, but it won’t be a walk in the park either. Choosing the right cryptography has trade-offs like size and verification time, so it’s not straightforward.

Yeah, probably not as bad as SegWit, but it’ll sting seeing other networks advance while we’re stuck arguing about this.

Seriously, it makes us look bad when centralized networks adopt expensive solutions while we’re still figuring it out. Do you even know how costly it is to run a Solana node compared to Bitcoin?

You’re twisting what I said. I believe this is gonna be a high-drama situation, just like the Block Size Debate. That’s how decentralized governance rolls.

Nah, it’s not just how governance works. It’s because a lot of people don’t know what they’re talking about. The drama exists because of misinformation and inflated egos. Most Bitcoin users probably shouldn’t even mention quantum stuff.

Honestly, anyone not actively paying attention to this is just wasting time. The BIP 110 proposal blocks many PQ signatures. It’s a joke those complaining about quantum resistance don’t get it.

You’re a bit off-topic here. The road to Post-Quantum Cryptography is gonna be tough, just like SegWit was. Figure out who’s genuine and who’s not. The Core Devs are the ones we should trust.

Can you break this down for me? I’m not following your direction here.

Many quantum-resistant methods need to push a lot of data in signatures or keys. If you cap those data pushes, upgrading to a quantum-secure system becomes a pain. And guess what BIP-110 does? Exactly that.