Considering the major trade-offs that come with adding quantum signatures and how they might affect blockspace, is it possible that governance splits could lead to a Hardfork being the most practical solution?
People expect Bitcoin to become more rigid, turning into this narrative of "Institutional Digital Gold," but isn’t that gonna push most users out? Like, they’d end up stuck on L2s where they lose real self-custody and could face censorship. Doesn’t it seem like game theory would just drive people to other chains instead?
Wouldn’t a Hardfork focused on keeping blockspace accessible and preserving sovereignty be a better bet to keep Bitcoin relevant in the long run?
And if most nodes are faced with the choice of introducing signatures and fear losing their sovereignty, wouldn’t they just choose the Hardfork?
If that happens, what’s gonna happen to ETF issuers if the original version becomes useless?
Could this surprise Hardfork actually help Bitcoin break free from Wall Street’s grip?
How do you see this unfolding as other chains make upgrades?
Are most people gonna lean towards the "Institutional Digital Gold" softfork or choose the "Sovereign Hard Money" hardfork instead?
Is this the next big Wall Street bet involving Bitcoin?
This may be off point to some extent Ive just heard enough of quantum threats i dont just know why I honestly expunged any thread/post that has quantum in it from my brain at this point is it only me that feels this way I guess Im not alone in this ?
A hardfork purely to address future quantum concerns seems unlikely unless there is a clear, imminent cryptographic break. Historically, Bitcoin has preferred softforks and long transition periods where possible. If quantum-resistant signatures become necessary, a slow opt-in migration would likely be favored over a contentious hardfork, especially given the coordination risk and economic fragmentation that would follow. Blockspace pressure and L2 reliance are separate but related issues and governance history suggests Bitcoin tends to ossify first and only change under clear existential pressure.
@OP,
Please take a little time to scan through this area. This topic has been repeatedly discussed ad-nausem here.... We don't need yet another thread about it...
Wouldn't a protective contentious Harfork happens anyway right before any attempt to insert quantum signatures scheme (whether via deffered activation or other discussed mechanism) as buying time won't change the final outcome of congestion and ultimate loss of sovereignty only delay it?
Many could also fear the "opt-in" never ends up being slow and congestion is quickly achieved afterwards anyway.
Since introducing signatures is a very disruptive event and consensus may never be met, an Hardfork would still have to go through first anyway to free governance from those against the softfork.
So it seems inevitable if consensus is stucked while under the pressure of other chains upgrading and becoming safer store of value first.
Then, what if the majority eventually just favor the Hardfork and recognize it as the real quantum Bitcoin ?
It will without doubt hardfork to a quantum-resistant algorithm, at some point. The real questions are (1) which algorithm that is (2) how many years it will take and (3) whether vulnerable coins will be frozen or not.
I've noticed you're writing the same thing at every quantum related thread. Have you actually used either the search bar or the Google search bar to find anything you've been looking for? Try searching for "quantum hardfork" and see yourself why every newbie is asking the same question.
We cant be sure if it's indeed the Wall Street next bet opportunity out of Bitcoin or if the ETF issuers will survive since there's no full information or decision about the fork, but I believe the fork will eventually happen to the Bitcoin network and I expect it to softfork due to the Quantum.
I just hope the fork will freeze Satoshi's 1M BTC to prevent future complications.
There is no clear path towards quantum resistance for Bitcoin this is the bottom line.
Quantum signatures are very disruptive and eventually a sacrifice of sovereignty.
So all discussions are now focused on how to minimize or delay impact.
But disruption is still real and outcomes same even if delayed.
Only credible path forward is inaction.
Until other chains upgrade, (will call it "rushed" but start taking hardforks attempts over value erosion)
Up to the point it has lost relevance or has been quantum drained.
Given this context, any long term commitment to Bitcoin seems foolish.
If I understood your OP correctly, you're worried about the impact of quantum signatures like SPHINCS+ on block space. And yes, that's definitely a valid concern.
However, we always have to take into account that even if such signatures are introduced (that would not need a hard fork), it's not necessary at all to make them mandatory, until a specific point in time: when quantum computers are so fast that they can apply Shor's algorithm to a public key in 10 minutes. Until then, quantum signatures can be purely optional.
That needs and incredibly powerful quantum computer. If we see Shor's algorithm in action, then we'll first see "hacks" where old coins were stolen. But even if Bitcoin devs wanted to prevent that, they can simply ban P2PK and similar techniques.
And even if that happens, Lightning, Ark, the tBTC (Threshold Network) sidechain mechanism and other second layers will ensure enough capacity for a blockspace hardfork being unnecessary.
It's even possible to introduce a new field like the Witness field in 2017 (a "QuantumSignatures" field) which could even be prunable, with a new soft fork similar to Segwit. We would then simply decide that QuantumSignatures only have a weight of 1/10th of the normal ECDSA Witnesses. That would impact in bandwidth, but not lead to additional consensus challenges.
Quantum computers don't have to apply Shor's algo in 10 minutes. A more primary problem than double-spending unconfirmed transactions is to take the coins of an address that is reused. I don't see this being discussed often, but it is a major issue in bitcoin. People reuse addresses all the time. Even big exchanges, with thousands of bitcoin. There's an enormous pile of work in most wallets to disable reusing addresses, and besides that, reusing addresses can actually provide utility in some cases.
As mentioned delaying the congestion doesn't change the later blockspace nuke outcome while custodian, CEX and Treasury will all upgrade asap anyway for risk management.
Bitcoin compete only with other chains becoming quantum safe and better store of value first. It will loose relevance and face liquidity erosion if not Hardforking Blocksize to upgrade as no consensus will be found on disruptive softfork (signature introduction event)
Because of the high congestion resulting from the softfork all those will ultimately force high centralization within shared lighting channels under potential censorship of centralized operators while having no real self custody.
If mainchain is not accessible to all anymore that only means sovereignty is lost for most but Institutions.
Softfork just doesn't look very great really
In theory Hardforks appear tempting, but the history of Bitcoin suggests that they are not likely to be dominant path. The high trade-offs of quantum resistant signatures and pressure of blockspace will still get governance debates intensed, but many economic actors has more value for continuity, predictability, and minimized coordinated risk. That actually favours conservative softforks, expansion of L2, and slowly ossification, even though it forces everyday users to go off the chain. This do really reduce sovereignty directly, though a lot of users accept that tradeoff for protection and liquidity. Hardforks that are framed around sovereign hard funds may likely fragment liquidity and consensus socially, as it was seen before, instead of replacing the exact chain. ETFs and institutions may almost certainly follow the chain with the most solid economic majority. Alternative chains can absorb users that refuse this very path, but Bitcoin itself is most likely to stay an institutional digital gold than to reinvent itself by a disruptive fork.
Wouldn't a protective hardfork happens anyway as near-full consensus may be unlikely and disruptive signature introducion would be eternally delayed?
Most capitalized actors expect continuity but in which conditions ? Ending up only between Institutions as TPS ultimately ends at 100 tx/block for ~4000 today? All medium size and new users ending up on other chains for having no effective sovereignty, self custody or even no censorship resistance ?
Is it what was Bitcoin supposed to become? Some gold for Institutions? or Sovereign Hard Money, as per the "p2p cash system ?
Satoshi might be ashamed.
Which chains should compete with Bitcoin for that outcome?
Ethereum and other similar PoS smart contract chains are much more vulnerable to quantum computer attacks because they re-use addresses all the time. Ethereum is almost as vulnerable as Satoshi's coins. XRP is afaik also account-based (not utxo-based) and thus has the same kind of vulnerability.
More "traditional" PoW chains? Only Doge/LTC (I mention both together because they use the same mining network), XMR and ZEC have a certain relevance. They could have advantages as they're not that congested and could add the quantum signatures earlier as they've less to lose (and are thus not as conservative), but they lack the strong network effect Bitcoin has, and are also more vulnerable to 51% attacks.
Some "quantum safe coin" currently at #579 at Coinmarketcap, with 90% premine? Nope.
So I don't see this competition scenario at all.
At the contrary: The softfork would increase the capacity for quantum signatures. Please read posts carefully.
And if the quantum threat is close, then there is no hurry, because there's a simple recovery mechanism, as long as you have not reused your address.
Altcoins are more vulnerable to 51% attacks than Bitcoin because their blockchains are smaller than Bitcoin blockchain in network hashrate so that their chains are more easily to be attacked and with cheaper attack cost. If these chains are unsafe with 51% attacks, how will they be good with quantum computer threats in the future?
These altcoins have yet reached to similar succcess like Bitcoin but they want to become more secured blockchains than Bitcoin blockchain. It is their ambitious but unrealistic development target or it is only their click-bait marketing trick for attracting people into their projects, forcing them to sell bitcoin for altcoins.
https://howmanyconfs.com/
https://www.crypto51.app/
All altcoins are already altcoins they can and will Hardfork blocksize like ETH did with Fuzaka recently as it prepares to upgrade. Most chain will upgrade and become quantum safe while Bitcoin cannot because consensus is impossible. Mainchain congestion and inaccessibility is just economic and sovereignty death once in practice.
Bitcoin will only start looking unsafe or otherwise soon Institutions-only (if hybrid signatures path) and loose relevance as other chains become quantum safe and preserve sovereignty while BTC is stucked in consensus.
The softfork looks like a consensus and economic dead end,
only the Hardfork path seems survivable.
Where exactly is your argument here? None?
Softforks can have exactly the same outcome as a hardfork in this case - a blocksize increase specifically to accomodate the quantum signatures. As I already wrote it's exactly the way Segwit did it! The only difference is that backwards compatibility is taken into account, so softforks are more complex to set up. But almost anything can be achieved with a softfork, perhaps with the exception of a change in the 21 million limit or creating coins out of thin air. And they are much more healthy to the network, because due to their activation rules it is extremely unlikely they lead really to a blockchain fork.
Ethereum can hardfork easier because the structure is more centralized. After the ETC precedent (ETC was dumped into oblivion by the owners of premined ETHs), nobody would dare to fork away from ETH, so they can hardfork at will. They can control the network just as PayPal can
Those aren't hard fork, but there are at least 2 cases where the community have consensus to fix vulnerability quickly.
In case you don't realize it, in both cases some blocks become invalid or no longer part of longest chain. That means some miner and mining pool suffer losses. So i believe another consensus is possible within Bitcoin community.
Argument is simple. Highly congested Bitcoin is only unpracticable bitcoin with sovereignty lost.
If mainchain access is priced out then this is no Bitcoin but some Institutions-only token.
You don't know because nobody ever experienced this in practice. Only theory so far...
Consensus won't be found on sacrifying sovereignty at the profit of Saylor and banks.
Signatures introduction is very disruptive event. Only loss of sovereignty.
Protective Hardfork is as disruptive and anyway mandatory first to free consensus of those against softfork.
Along with Asian miners.
Can hardfork blocksize x20-100 after BIP360 so to introduce quantum signatures in a more reliable blockspace environment and maintain current status quo out a free bitcoin still usable.
But you can stay on worthless bank-only highly congested old chain.
Ah, so your argument is that a softfork to increase blocksize for a BIP-360-style quantum improvement would not be accepted, and thus the hardfork is the only option?
Well, that's entirely speculative. You may base that on the criticism to BIP 360, which in this state is unlikely to be accepted. But there is almost consensus among developers that eventually such a BIP should be implemented.
And I don't think miners would be against it. Miners will accept everything which may increase their income. Of course we could speculate that some would be hesitant to increase block space because they fear transaction fees to decrease. But in the case a quantum threat is near, I think the miners will take that into account and prefer a safe Bitcoin with perhaps slightly less transaction fees to an unsafe (without post-quantum signatures) or ultra-congested (with post-quantum signatures but without size increase) Bitcoin with a much lower price in USD.