Bitcoin Quantum Attack Solved? BitMEX Proposes ‘Canary’ Alternative to Blind Freezing
AI Podcast
BitMEX proposed the Canary scheme, an alternative to BIP-361, for mitigating quantum attacks on Bitcoin. Both schemes have drawbacks. BIP-361, suggesting freezing vulnerable addresses, faced criticism for centralizing control and violating Bitcoin's ethos. Geiger highlighted the absurdity of freezing assets preemptively. The Canary scheme is less aggressive but poses implementation challenges and raises questions about post-freeze recovery and owner identification. Despite ongoing research, a definitive solution to quantum threats remains elusive, with potential implications including a Bitcoin hard fork and downward price pressure.
TradingKey - BitMEX proposes the Canary scheme as an alternative to BIP-361, but both have significant shortcomings, and Bitcoin remains threatened by quantum attacks.
On April 16, cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX proposed a new scheme to address potential quantum attacks on Bitcoin ( BTC ). Specifically, the solution proposed by the exchange is an improvement on the "quantum freeze" scheme, which involves pre-setting canary addresses and proving that no one possesses the private keys; if a transfer suddenly occurs from such an address one day, it is immediately frozen.
Yesterday, Cypherpunk Jameson Lopp and several Bitcoin quantum security experts proposed a solution to quantum attacks—BIP-361—suggesting the freezing of wallet addresses vulnerable to quantum attacks, including those made public by Satoshi Nakamoto, to prevent the theft of approximately 1.7 million BTC via quantum attacks.
Following its introduction, the proposal was quickly met with opposition from the community because it violates the original concept of decentralization,
carrying strong "central planning" undertones that do not align with Satoshi's originalism. In response, critic Phil Geiger pointed out that "freezing assets first" to "prevent assets from being stolen" is logically absurd, as it grants developers authority over users.
The proposal mentions "invalidating legacy signatures and freezing unmigrated assets after five years," which means if holders do not move their BTC, their assets will be forcibly frozen by the network. The scheme also proposes using zero-knowledge proof mechanisms to help recover frozen funds, a technology that is both immature and contrary to the principle of decentralization.
Features | BIP-361 | Canary |
Trigger Mechanism | Manually set 5-year deadline | When specific addresses are cracked by quantum computers |
Control | Mandatory; assets are frozen if not migrated | Reactive; action taken only after threat is confirmed |
Impact | May lead to the accidental freezing of a large number of assets | Defenses activated only after a quantum attack is detected |
As can be seen from the above, the Canary scheme is more moderate than BIP-361, but it is more technically challenging to implement and raises new issues, such as what to do after a freeze? How can the owner of a wallet address be distinguished from a quantum hacker? To date, no reasonable and actionable solution has been found for the quantum threat facing Bitcoin, though many teams are currently working on it.
It should be noted that while quantum attacks have not yet materialized, it is only a matter of time. Therefore, their impact cannot be ignored, as they might lead to another Bitcoin hard fork. Research published by Google in March indicates this possibility is highly likely and could lead to a confrontation between two public chains. If so, the price of Bitcoin will inevitably face another period of downward pressure.
This content was translated using AI and reviewed for clarity. It is for informational purposes only.
Recommended Articles
