Bitcoin Developers Propose 'Wait and React' Strategy to Counter Quantum Computing Threats

The Bitcoin community is discussing a novel approach to addressing the potential threat of quantum computing: delaying action until an attack is confirmed. However, this plan relies on the assumption that the attacker will prioritize claiming a bounty over exploiting the vulnerability for financial gain. A recent proposal by BitMEX Research outlines a system that would trigger a network-wide freeze of older wallets only if a quantum-capable attacker demonstrates their capabilities on-chain. This 'wait and react' strategy involves placing a small amount of bitcoin in a special address that can only be unlocked by a quantum-capable attacker, with any spend from that address serving as proof that the threat has arrived. The proposal is designed as an alternative to BIP-361, which would impose restrictions on a fixed five-year timeline regardless of whether quantum computers pose an actual threat. Critics argue that BIP-361's approach is 'authoritarian and confiscatory,' as it would undermine Bitcoin's core principle of private key holder control. The new proposal includes a financial incentive, where users can contribute to a bounty that rewards the first entity to demonstrate a quantum attack publicly. The structure allows contributors to withdraw their funds at any time. Additionally, the proposal introduces a 'safety window' to make stealth attacks more difficult. If the canary is triggered during this window, vulnerable coins would be frozen retroactively, increasing the risk for any attacker attempting to quietly extract funds. However, this approach rests on the assumption that the first entity capable of breaking Bitcoin would claim the bounty rather than execute a large-scale theft. This bet goes against Bitcoin's design principles, which prioritize preventing worst-case scenarios. If the bet fails, Bitcoin risks experiencing the worst of both worlds: the catastrophe it was trying to prevent and the realization that a fixed-timeline defense would have been more effective.