Bitcoin developers are sparking a major discussion about a new plan to protect the network from potential attacks by future quantum computers, which could break its security.
This Tuesday, Jameson Lopp, a prominent advocate for privacy and cryptography, along with five collaborators, released a proposal called BIP 361. The proposal, published on Bitcoin’s development platform, details a three-step process to encourage users to adopt more secure addresses that can withstand future quantum computing attacks, and ultimately retire older, less secure signature methods.
A new Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP), number 361, titled “Post Quantum Migration and Legacy Signature Sunset,” is now available. You can find the full proposal here:
— Murch (@murchandamus) April 14, 2026
The worry comes from the way Bitcoin manages its security keys. Older Bitcoin addresses, particularly those used in the very beginning by Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, publicly display these keys on the blockchain. If a powerful enough quantum computer were developed, it could potentially use this public information to unlock the private keys, potentially stealing around 6.7 million Bitcoins – currently worth tens of billions of dollars.
As an analyst, I’ve been following the development of BIP 361 closely. It’s essentially an extension of BIP 360, which first laid the groundwork for incorporating post-quantum cryptography into transaction outputs. Once this new proposal is activated through a soft fork, we’ll see…
- Phase A, roughly three years later, would block new sends to legacy addresses, nudging adoption of safer formats.
- Phase B, five years after activation on a fixed “flag day,” would invalidate ECDSA and Schnorr signatures entirely, freezing any unmigrated quantum-vulnerable UTXOs.
- Phase C, still under discussion, could offer a recovery path for some frozen funds using zero-knowledge proofs to verify ownership, such as via BIP-39 seed phrases.
Those in favor of the plan say it encourages a smooth transition by setting a clear schedule, rather than waiting for problems to arise. Many supporters urged faster implementation, noting that updates across the broader crypto space – including wallets, exchanges, and other services – have been slow. However, the initial reaction on X (formerly Twitter) was quick and largely negative.
People strongly criticized the plan, calling it controlling and claiming it would unfairly take people’s Bitcoin. They argued it went against the fundamental idea that Bitcoin ownership is permanent and secure.
One user criticized the proposed quantum upgrade as overly forceful and restrictive, arguing there’s no justification for requiring it and making older transactions unusable. They believe the upgrade should be entirely optional.
A lot of people strongly opposed Phase B, arguing that Bitcoin upgrades should be optional. They didn’t want coins – even potentially those belonging to Satoshi Nakamoto – to be frozen if they weren’t being used or were lost. Some critics also said the plan was too controlling, treating Bitcoin more like a managed community than a truly independent currency.
The creators of the BIP, including Mark Erhardt, who first shared the proposal, described it as a practical way to protect the system. However, the strong negative reaction shows how difficult it is to find a balance between keeping Bitcoin secure for the future and maintaining its principle of not changing rules after the fact.
Because Bitcoin relies on agreement from its users, any change to the system requires widespread support from those who verify transactions and maintain the network. This proposal is essentially a test of how much the community will accept mandatory updates.
Read More
- Brent Oil Forecast
- Gold Rate Forecast
- Stablecoins: The New Corporate Opium or Financial Revolution?
- How the SEC and Nasdaq Play Whack-a-Mole with Chinese IPO Scandals 🎭💼
- POWER’s 90% Crash: The Crypto Tale You Won’t Believe
- Silver Rate Forecast
- EUR HUF PREDICTION
- USD COP PREDICTION
- FTX’s Bankruptcy Circus: Freezing Payouts in Crypto-No-Go Zones 🤪💰
- Gold vs. Bitcoin: Which Is More Likely to Cause a Champagne Shortage?
2026-04-15 11:19