Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Against Allowing Quantum Recovery of Bitcoin

From: Sjors Provoost <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:16:00 +0100

Matt Corallo wrote:

>> In that scenario you'd need to use a NUMS point for the key path. Or maybe that's unsafe, in which case we'd need a new Taproot version without key path support (or BIP360). That's also not a difficult soft fork, but now again you have something that only a small set of users will want to use.
>>> 
>>> 
> A NUMS point does not suffice unless we explicitly soft-fork out spending from that NUMS point (which is, of course, doable).

This could be a solution to the sequencing conundrum that I tried to explain.

Along with the first PCQ scheme for tapscript (script path), we could have a soft that disables one or more NUMS points. The latter has zero effect under the current cryptographic assumptions, so it's not confiscatory.

That way people can start using the scheme without having to worry about whether the community decides to freeze key path spending in time. They'll still worry about the market value of their coins, but not about whether they're going to be the first victim (or the umpteenth victim while everyone is in denial and blames them for poor key management).

- Sjors

-- 
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 email to [email-masked].
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/27A7048A-88D3-432A-AD7C-07C5EC60942D%40sprovoost.nl.