BIP-361 dey face backlash over quantum threat to legacy BTC
Di Bitcoin proposed upgrade, BIP-361 (Post Quantum Migration and Legacy Signature Sunset), don dey for official proposals discussion now and e dey attract strong backlash. Di plan wan make “legacy spending sunset” before possible quantum break for future, dem talk say about 34% of circulating BTC fit dey exposed because old UTXOs. Di figures wey dem quote include roughly 1.7M BTC for early P2PK outputs and about 1.1M BTC from Satoshi-era legacy addresses. Critics dey warn say BIP-361 fit basically “freeze” coins wey never migrate and e fit look like confiscation or censorship. Dan Held talk say e dey undermine Bitcoin immutable monetary policy by making some UTXOs unspendable after one trigger block height. Supporters dey frame BIP-361 as insurance: di phased design go (1) block legacy P2PK addresses from receiving BTC, (2) invalidate ECDSA/Schnorr spending so legacy ECDSA/Schnorr UTXOs no fit be spent, and (3) add zero-knowledge recovery path so users fit migrate remaining funds to upgraded addresses once quantum-safe scheme dey. Di latest article put fresh emphasis on quantum feasibility risk, e cite Google view say much fewer qubits (about 500,000, versus earlier ~10M estimates) fit be enough to break ECC, and e mention Google Willow processor (105 qubits). Traders suppose expect higher headline uncertainty around BIP-361 as timelines and final post-quantum signature mechanism still undefined—this one go keep event-driven volatility risk on BTC until the community converge.
Bearish
Dis news dey frame 'round wan potential forceful protocol change for BTC spending rules. Even tho supporters dey call BIP-361 “insurance,” di market focus na on di criticised mechanics: legacy ECDSA/Schnorr UTXOs fit become unspendable after one trigger height unless recovery/migration work as dem suppose. Dat combination—plenty legacy balances wey dem mention (including ~1.7M BTC P2PK and ~1.1M BTC early holdings) plus details wey never clear about di required post-quantum scheme and how complete di recovery path be—dey add headline risk and dey increase perceived governance/policy uncertainty.
Short-term, traders often price uncertainty around contentious upgrades through higher volatility and risk-off positioning for di affected asset (BTC). Long-term, di outcome depend on whether community go accept one restrictive “legacy spending sunset” concept and how credible di migration/recovery path be. If BIP-361 modify make e less restrictive, di bearish pressure fit fade; if e move forward with strict constraints, bearish sentiment fit continue. Overall, given di emphasis on “freezing” concerns and undefined timelines, di net price impact expectation for BTC na bearish.