diff options
| author | Hunter Beast <hunter@surmount.systems> | 2025-02-19 08:06:57 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com> | 2025-02-19 08:31:19 -0800 |
| commit | 96eb9f0a1113b99c9465462dbd5a1773026e87c3 (patch) | |
| tree | db37be4f3f984ccc840b6c6aa8b7eb3930079186 | |
| parent | 6d20df6a6416f9f6d06157f2786a3ccbf77ff0d3 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-96eb9f0a1113b99c9465462dbd5a1773026e87c3.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-96eb9f0a1113b99c9465462dbd5a1773026e87c3.zip | |
Re: [bitcoindev] Proposal for Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAMP) BIP
| -rw-r--r-- | a6/b5828dfb234328134f1bc534968a3c5b8e154a | 466 |
1 files changed, 466 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/a6/b5828dfb234328134f1bc534968a3c5b8e154a b/a6/b5828dfb234328134f1bc534968a3c5b8e154a new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f1828f820 --- /dev/null +++ b/a6/b5828dfb234328134f1bc534968a3c5b8e154a @@ -0,0 +1,466 @@ +Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:31:19 -0800 +Received: from mail-yb1-f191.google.com ([209.85.219.191]) + by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 + (Exim 4.94.2) + (envelope-from <bitcoindev+bncBD3YNWFH7IHBBTMO3C6QMGQEORZ3ZWQ@googlegroups.com>) + id 1tkmyk-00055O-DO + for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:31:19 -0800 +Received: by mail-yb1-f191.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e5dac3d1147sf1023276.1 + for <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:31:18 -0800 (PST) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1739982672; x=1740587472; darn=gnusha.org; + h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post + :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version + :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:sender:from + :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; + bh=raRc8OgOxPExLHfXC53FJE7hUWsQrAnXbXgzwyHukF4=; + b=hKJyV6mQppj1Bn2yblKsce5q34VjZ28h8Jpp1CS0m5m4/u6Sx4kN4TBV28tbfBJaaC + LxvjWymIGrITsbifuRpBqPmZzu2ajwSgydsh8439fNhXQSvWSxt92/orYg2XGdTCBE1l + uFjEGtw6tfrtk+2ooGmfXyFo5puhddnSWidsyI27/JcIU/swpVujkAbfiuRq8ri4WGA9 + GCzNFaJ7e+0sEqQ7FBN6X/kxMSXhrxi94ta81C9vq76n83yUicGxK2u2ES/sKxMETZA+ + DkJZY+ksz9q4X765OB/NBlAP/RfcAavUKgBvrd7MBiu3gSUaMrUhg2si8WOsywhAbXo9 + yfqQ== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1739982672; x=1740587472; + h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post + :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version + :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:x-beenthere + :x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id + :reply-to; + bh=raRc8OgOxPExLHfXC53FJE7hUWsQrAnXbXgzwyHukF4=; + b=PeaOm3dCRJKX8lU2hnVs+A05mCxiGi1AHJw7B/Nh6H12BZudJC4p9xgVZITU0cQOLf + KtBdhqAf/7tXxKQxkRGt2qDqG5C5OeqAJbvnz4znSlWlEICOOSrXTUpdNdokqPxH4d2G + wMHNw5D4hTy6psspmo1QvH/e59/AjE1k617FgCQ3NlkZFXT/tPtKuhtpP+a2lTWRTBPD + RpQQARIeKQ4V8TntizsXpfHQ4ozOmWNrcj6k0qBvAijtCnPtxkrR1JxbRA59yeCSWC+Z + 9FX1RXG0YPMXAnlT2/9II3/Y3AjRyNMqZrCNAo0HYmT2urBD6D810oLskuUj5NKLs2XX + ZQYQ== +Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com +X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVgkrtzpILhHUv3TCApBSQwgZwxpwHpRaAwQkKonhArDqu+E+Drq/eee0zKNWR8QxbEQKQkk6zw92lR@gnusha.org +X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzE182mVTzTyVoypJqeaSLtSjlW4o04AArEECtpbe8NL963C5zn + 9Sn8q1s2aRxCIONuts5HfTXv3ub4i2+mPIL1oMFLC29ArKinGLBZ +X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHQ3b/FiQttYl2aF6z0DUeS3I3j20eIFpxn+9bfBNfFtoOS0UjIt5XWYsTYLZNmVZ3jv/U9tA== +X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:27c7:b0:e58:1112:c3d3 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e5dc90497dfmr6205314276.4.1739982672579; + Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:31:12 -0800 (PST) +X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h=Adn5yVGmRvnXUcqdWQMrS9mDmszQ016sEuForjQyZOIu2jeryw== +Received: by 2002:a25:5f11:0:b0:e5b:423e:3be6 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e5e18de4daels706276.1.-pod-prod-08-us; + Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:31:09 -0800 (PST) +X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:317:b0:6f7:409c:f645 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6fba5658c0emr40805057b3.4.1739982669568; + Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:31:09 -0800 (PST) +Received: by 2002:a81:be1a:0:b0:6f9:77a0:782b with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6fb44a6cc88ms7b3; + Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:06:59 -0800 (PST) +X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:498d:b0:6fb:9445:d28e with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6fba517324fmr39851627b3.10.1739981217550; + Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:06:57 -0800 (PST) +Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:06:57 -0800 (PST) +From: Hunter Beast <hunter@surmount.systems> +To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com> +Message-Id: <f9e233e0-9d87-4e71-9a9f-3310ea242194n@googlegroups.com> +In-Reply-To: <CAJDmzYzUAzoCj3da-3M_ast0_+Qxf3_J1OXWf88B2D-R70pPrg@mail.gmail.com> +References: <08a544fa-a29b-45c2-8303-8c5bde8598e7n@googlegroups.com> + <CAC3UE4+kme2N6D_Xx8+VaH1BJnkVEfntPmnLQzaqTQfK4D5QhQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJDmzYxJzFs=myecyMS6iJwSni1sDwUVq3kMnNGg=dK5kULRJg@mail.gmail.com> + <CAC3UE4K=T8BmOeLW9s=x+TBauK+M5Z3MaSicD42+rOj_jZ2Ugw@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJDmzYzUAzoCj3da-3M_ast0_+Qxf3_J1OXWf88B2D-R70pPrg@mail.gmail.com> +Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Proposal for Quantum-Resistant Address Migration + Protocol (QRAMP) BIP +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: multipart/mixed; + boundary="----=_Part_234746_846143868.1739981217114" +X-Original-Sender: hunter@surmount.systems +Precedence: list +Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com +List-ID: <bitcoindev.googlegroups.com> +X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 +List-Post: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/post>, <mailto:bitcoindev@googlegroups.com> +List-Help: <https://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:bitcoindev+help@googlegroups.com> +List-Archive: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev +List-Subscribe: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/subscribe>, <mailto:bitcoindev+subscribe@googlegroups.com> +List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+786775582512+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>, + <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/subscribe> +X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) + +------=_Part_234746_846143868.1739981217114 +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; + boundary="----=_Part_234747_1231912761.1739981217114" + +------=_Part_234747_1231912761.1739981217114 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +I don't see why old coins should be confiscated. The better option is to=20 +let those with quantum computers free up old coins. While this might have= +=20 +an inflationary impact on bitcoin's price, to use a turn of phrase, the=20 +inflation is transitory. Those with low time preference should support=20 +returning lost coins to circulation. + +Also, I don't see the urgency, considering the majority of coins are in=20 +either P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2SH, and P2WSH addresses. If PQC signatures aren't= +=20 +added, such as with BIP-360, there will be some concern around long=20 +exposure attacks on P2TR coins. For large amounts, it would be smart to=20 +modify wallets to support broadcasting transactions to private mempool=20 +services such as Slipstream, to mitigate short exposure attacks. Those will= +=20 +also be rarer early on since a CRQC capable of a long exposure attack is=20 +much simpler than one capable of pulling off a short exposure attack=20 +against a transaction in the mempool. + +Bitcoin's Q-day likely won't be sudden and obvious. It will also take time= +=20 +to coordinate a soft fork activation. This shouldn't be rushed. + +In the interest of transparency, it's worth mentioning that I'm working on= +=20 +a BIP-360 implementation for Anduro. Both Anduro and Slipstream are MARA=20 +services. + +On Tuesday, February 11, 2025 at 9:01:51=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7 Agustin Cruz wrot= +e: + +> Hi Dustin: +> +> I understand that the proposal is an extraordinary ask=E2=80=94it would i= +ndeed=20 +> void a non-trivial part of the coin supply if users do not migrate in tim= +e,=20 +> and under normal circumstances, many would argue that unused P2PKH funds= +=20 +> are safe from a quantum adversary. However, the intent here is to be=20 +> proactive rather than reactive. +> +> The concern isn=E2=80=99t solely about funds in active wallets. Consider = +that if=20 +> we don=E2=80=99t implement a proactive migration, any Bitcoin in lost=20 +> wallets=E2=80=94including, hypothetically, Satoshi=E2=80=99s if he is not= + alive=E2=80=94will remain=20 +> vulnerable. In the event of a quantum breakthrough, those coins could be= +=20 +> hacked and put back into circulation. Such an outcome would not only=20 +> disrupt the balance of supply but could also undermine the trust and=20 +> security that Bitcoin has built over decades. In short, the consequences = +of=20 +> a reactive measure in a quantum emergency could be far more catastrophic. +> +> While I agree that a forced migration during an active quantum attack=20 +> scenario might be more acceptable (since funds would likely be considered= +=20 +> lost anyway), waiting until such an emergency arises leaves us with littl= +e=20 +> margin for error. By enforcing a migration now, we create a window for th= +e=20 +> entire community to transition safely=E2=80=94assuming we set the deadlin= +e=20 +> generously and provide ample notifications, auto-migration tools, and, if= +=20 +> necessary, emergency extensions. +> +> El mar, 11 de feb de 2025, 9:48=E2=80=AFp. m., Dustin Ray <dustinvo...@gm= +ail.com>=20 +> escribi=C3=B3: +> +>> I think youre going to have a tough time getting consensus on this +>> proposal. It is an extraordinary ask of the community to instill a +>> change that will essentially void out a non-trivial part of the coin +>> supply, especially when funds behind unused P2PKH addresses are at +>> this point considered safe from a quantum adversary. +>> +>> In my opinion, where parts of this proposal make sense is in a quantum +>> emergency in which an adversary is actively extracting private keys +>> from known public keys and a transition must be made quickly and +>> decisively. In that case, we might as well consider funds to be lost +>> anyways. In any other scenario prior to this hypothetical emergency +>> however, I have serious doubts that the community is going to consent +>> to this proposal as it stands. +>> +>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 4:37=E2=80=AFPM Agustin Cruz <agusti...@gmail.co= +m> wrote: +>> > +>> > Hi Dustin +>> > +>> > To clarify, the intent behind making legacy funds unspendable after a= +=20 +>> certain block height is indeed a hard security measure=E2=80=94designed = +to mitigate=20 +>> the potentially catastrophic risk posed by quantum attacks on ECDSA. The= +=20 +>> idea is to force a proactive migration of funds to quantum-resistant=20 +>> addresses before quantum computers become capable of compromising the=20 +>> current cryptography. +>> > +>> > The migration window is intended to be sufficiently long (determined b= +y=20 +>> both block height and community input) to provide ample time for users a= +nd=20 +>> service providers to transition. +>> > +>> > +>> > El mar, 11 de feb de 2025, 9:15=E2=80=AFp. m., Dustin Ray < +>> dustinvo...@gmail.com> escribi=C3=B3: +>> >> +>> >> Right off the bat I notice you are proposing that legacy funds become= +=20 +>> unspendable after a certain block height which immediately raises seriou= +s=20 +>> problems. A migration to quantum hard addresses in this manner would cau= +se=20 +>> serious financial damage to anyone holding legacy funds, if I understand= +=20 +>> your proposal correctly. +>> >> +>> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 4:10=E2=80=AFPM Agustin Cruz <agusti...@gmail= +.com>=20 +>> wrote: +>> >>> +>> >>> Dear Bitcoin Developers, +>> >>> +>> >>> I am writing to share my proposal for a new Bitcoin Improvement=20 +>> Proposal (BIP) titled Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAM= +P).=20 +>> The goal of this proposal is to safeguard Bitcoin against potential futu= +re=20 +>> quantum attacks by enforcing a mandatory migration period for funds held= + in=20 +>> legacy Bitcoin addresses (secured by ECDSA) to quantum-resistant address= +es. +>> >>> +>> >>> The proposal outlines: +>> >>> +>> >>> Reducing Vulnerabilities: Transitioning funds to quantum-resistant= +=20 +>> schemes preemptively to eliminate the risk posed by quantum attacks on= +=20 +>> exposed public keys. +>> >>> Enforcing Timelines: A hard migration deadline that forces timely=20 +>> action, rather than relying on a gradual, voluntary migration that might= +=20 +>> leave many users at risk. +>> >>> Balancing Risks: Weighing the non-trivial risk of funds being=20 +>> permanently locked against the potential catastrophic impact of a quantu= +m=20 +>> attack on Bitcoin=E2=80=99s security. +>> >>> +>> >>> Additionally, the proposal addresses common criticisms such as the= +=20 +>> risk of permanent fund loss, uncertain quantum timelines, and the potent= +ial=20 +>> for chain splits. It also details backwards compatibility measures,=20 +>> comprehensive security considerations, an extensive suite of test cases,= +=20 +>> and a reference implementation plan that includes script interpreter=20 +>> changes, wallet software updates, and network monitoring tools. +>> >>> +>> >>> For your convenience, I have published the full proposal on my GitHu= +b=20 +>> repository. You can review it at the following link: +>> >>> +>> >>> Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAMP) Proposal on=20 +>> GitHub +>> >>> +>> >>> I welcome your feedback and suggestions and look forward to engaging= +=20 +>> in a constructive discussion on how best to enhance the security and=20 +>> resilience of the Bitcoin network in the quantum computing era. +>> >>> +>> >>> Thank you for your time and consideration. +>> >>> +>> >>> Best regards, +>> >>> +>> >>> Agustin Cruz +>> >>> +>> >>> -- +>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google= +=20 +>> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. +>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,=20 +>> send an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com. +>> >>> To view this discussion visit=20 +>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/08a544fa-a29b-45c2-8303-8c5= +bde8598e7n%40googlegroups.com +>> . +>> +> + +--=20 +You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= +Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. +To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= +mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. +To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= +f9e233e0-9d87-4e71-9a9f-3310ea242194n%40googlegroups.com. + +------=_Part_234747_1231912761.1739981217114 +Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +I don't see why old coins should be confiscated. The better option is to le= +t those with quantum computers free up old coins. While this might have an = +inflationary impact on bitcoin's price, to use a turn of phrase, the inflat= +ion is transitory. Those with low time preference should support returning = +lost coins to circulation.<div><br /></div><div>Also, I don't see the urgen= +cy, considering the majority of coins are in either P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2SH, an= +d P2WSH addresses. If PQC signatures aren't added, such as with BIP-360, th= +ere will be some concern around long exposure attacks on P2TR coins. For la= +rge amounts, it would be smart to modify wallets to support broadcasting tr= +ansactions to private mempool services such as Slipstream, to mitigate shor= +t exposure attacks. Those will also be rarer early on since a CRQC capable = +of a long exposure attack is much simpler than one capable of pulling off a= + short exposure attack against a transaction in the mempool.</div><div><br = +/></div><div>Bitcoin's Q-day likely won't be sudden and obvious. It will al= +so take time to coordinate a soft fork activation. This shouldn't be rushed= +.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the interest of transparency, it's worth me= +ntioning that I'm working on a BIP-360 implementation for Anduro. Both Andu= +ro and Slipstream are MARA services.</div><div><br /></div><div class=3D"gm= +ail_quote"><div dir=3D"auto" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tuesday, February 11, = +2025 at 9:01:51=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7 Agustin Cruz wrote:<br/></div><blockquote = +class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid = +rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"auto"><p dir=3D"ltr">Hi= + Dustin:</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">I understand that the proposal is an extraordinary ask=E2=80= +=94it would indeed void a non-trivial part of the coin supply if users do n= +ot migrate in time, and under normal circumstances, many would argue that u= +nused P2PKH funds are safe from a quantum adversary. However, the intent he= +re is to be proactive rather than reactive.</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">The concern isn=E2=80=99t solely about funds in active walle= +ts. Consider that if we don=E2=80=99t implement a proactive migration, any = +Bitcoin in lost wallets=E2=80=94including, hypothetically, Satoshi=E2=80=99= +s if he is not alive=E2=80=94will remain vulnerable. In the event of a quan= +tum breakthrough, those coins could be hacked and put back into circulation= +. Such an outcome would not only disrupt the balance of supply but could al= +so undermine the trust and security that Bitcoin has built over decades. In= + short, the consequences of a reactive measure in a quantum emergency could= + be far more catastrophic.</p> +<p dir=3D"ltr">While I agree that a forced migration during an active quant= +um attack scenario might be more acceptable (since funds would likely be co= +nsidered lost anyway), waiting until such an emergency arises leaves us wit= +h little margin for error. By enforcing a migration now, we create a window= + for the entire community to transition safely=E2=80=94assuming we set the = +deadline generously and provide ample notifications, auto-migration tools, = +and, if necessary, emergency extensions.</p></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_q= +uote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">El mar, 11 de feb de 2025, 9:48= +=E2=80=AFp.=C2=A0m., Dustin Ray <<a href data-email-masked rel=3D"nofoll= +ow">dustinvo...@gmail.com</a>> escribi=C3=B3:<br></div><blockquote class= +=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd= +ing-left:1ex">I think youre going to have a tough time getting consensus on= + this<br> +proposal. It is an extraordinary ask of the community to instill a<br> +change that will essentially void out a non-trivial part of the coin<br> +supply, especially when funds behind unused P2PKH addresses are at<br> +this point considered safe from a quantum adversary.<br> +<br> +In my opinion, where parts of this proposal make sense is in a quantum<br> +emergency in which an adversary is actively extracting private keys<br> +from known public keys and a transition must be made quickly and<br> +decisively. In that case, we might as well consider funds to be lost<br> +anyways. In any other scenario prior to this hypothetical emergency<br> +however, I have serious doubts that the community is going to consent<br> +to this proposal as it stands.<br> +<br> +On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 4:37=E2=80=AFPM Agustin Cruz <<a href rel=3D"nor= +eferrer nofollow" data-email-masked>agusti...@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> +><br> +> Hi Dustin<br> +><br> +> To clarify, the intent behind making legacy funds unspendable after a = +certain block height is indeed a hard security measure=E2=80=94designed to = +mitigate the potentially catastrophic risk posed by quantum attacks on ECDS= +A. The idea is to force a proactive migration of funds to quantum-resistant= + addresses before quantum computers become capable of compromising the curr= +ent cryptography.<br> +><br> +> The migration window is intended to be sufficiently long (determined b= +y both block height and community input) to provide ample time for users an= +d service providers to transition.<br> +><br> +><br> +> El mar, 11 de feb de 2025, 9:15=E2=80=AFp. m., Dustin Ray <<a href = +rel=3D"noreferrer nofollow" data-email-masked>dustinvo...@gmail.com</a>>= + escribi=C3=B3:<br> +>><br> +>> Right off the bat I notice you are proposing that legacy funds bec= +ome unspendable after a certain block height which immediately raises serio= +us problems. A migration to quantum hard addresses in this manner would cau= +se serious financial damage to anyone holding legacy funds, if I understand= + your proposal correctly.<br> +>><br> +>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 4:10=E2=80=AFPM Agustin Cruz <<a href r= +el=3D"noreferrer nofollow" data-email-masked>agusti...@gmail.com</a>> wr= +ote:<br> +>>><br> +>>> Dear Bitcoin Developers,<br> +>>><br> +>>> I am writing to share my proposal for a new Bitcoin Improvemen= +t Proposal (BIP) titled Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAMP= +). The goal of this proposal is to safeguard Bitcoin against potential futu= +re quantum attacks by enforcing a mandatory migration period for funds held= + in legacy Bitcoin addresses (secured by ECDSA) to quantum-resistant addres= +ses.<br> +>>><br> +>>> The proposal outlines:<br> +>>><br> +>>> Reducing Vulnerabilities: Transitioning funds to quantum-resis= +tant schemes preemptively to eliminate the risk posed by quantum attacks on= + exposed public keys.<br> +>>> Enforcing Timelines: A hard migration deadline that forces tim= +ely action, rather than relying on a gradual, voluntary migration that migh= +t leave many users at risk.<br> +>>> Balancing Risks: Weighing the non-trivial risk of funds being = +permanently locked against the potential catastrophic impact of a quantum a= +ttack on Bitcoin=E2=80=99s security.<br> +>>><br> +>>> Additionally, the proposal addresses common criticisms such as= + the risk of permanent fund loss, uncertain quantum timelines, and the pote= +ntial for chain splits. It also details backwards compatibility measures, c= +omprehensive security considerations, an extensive suite of test cases, and= + a reference implementation plan that includes script interpreter changes, = +wallet software updates, and network monitoring tools.<br> +>>><br> +>>> For your convenience, I have published the full proposal on my= + GitHub repository. You can review it at the following link:<br> +>>><br> +>>> Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAMP) Proposal = +on GitHub<br> +>>><br> +>>> I welcome your feedback and suggestions and look forward to en= +gaging in a constructive discussion on how best to enhance the security and= + resilience of the Bitcoin network in the quantum computing era.<br> +>>><br> +>>> Thank you for your time and consideration.<br> +>>><br> +>>> Best regards,<br> +>>><br> +>>> Agustin Cruz<br> +>>><br> +>>> --<br> +>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Go= +ogle Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.<br> +>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from = +it, send an email to <a href rel=3D"noreferrer nofollow" data-email-masked>= +bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com</a>.<br> +>>> To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google= +.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/08a544fa-a29b-45c2-8303-8c5bde8598e7n%40googlegroup= +s.com" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer nofollow" target=3D"_blank" data-safere= +directurl=3D"https://www.google.com/url?hl=3Den&q=3Dhttps://groups.goog= +le.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/08a544fa-a29b-45c2-8303-8c5bde8598e7n%2540googleg= +roups.com&source=3Dgmail&ust=3D1740066729281000&usg=3DAOvVaw3UO= +I4K5wKSzAElSWDPITT8">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/08a544fa-= +a29b-45c2-8303-8c5bde8598e7n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br> +</blockquote></div> +</blockquote></div> + +<p></p> + +-- <br /> +You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= +quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.<br /> +To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= +mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind= +ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br /> +To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/= +bitcoindev/f9e233e0-9d87-4e71-9a9f-3310ea242194n%40googlegroups.com?utm_med= +ium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind= +ev/f9e233e0-9d87-4e71-9a9f-3310ea242194n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br /> + +------=_Part_234747_1231912761.1739981217114-- + +------=_Part_234746_846143868.1739981217114-- + |