Hi everyone!

Seeing the discussions about transitioning to quantum-resistant signatures, I notice three main concerns:

• What should be done with vulnerable funds? Freeze them or leave them exposed?

• How can the transition be made without affecting Bitcoin’s stability or dividing the community?

• How can we avoid market chaos if the transition is disorderly?

Personally, I believe the key is a gradual, well-planned transition based on incentives rather than abrupt changes that create uncertainty.

I can think of a three-phase approach:

🔹 First, allow users to add optional PQC keys to their Taproot addresses starting now.
🔹 Then, before the quantum threat becomes real, introduce a soft fork that disables vulnerable signatures, but with a long migration period (at least four years).
🔹 Finally, when the threat is imminent, gradually phase out old signatures instead of forcing a sudden change.

For this to work, adoption should be incentivized—for example, with lower fees for secure transactions and wallet tools that facilitate a smooth transition. Additionally, real-time monitoring of vulnerable addresses would help mitigate risks.

Another key point is to avoid panic. Instead of a sudden "D-Day" where everything changes at once, the deactivation of old UTXOs should be gradual, with clear communication so no one feels forced or disadvantaged.

In summary, this is not about imposing rules or confiscating anything, but about providing options for an orderly transition that doesn’t compromise Bitcoin’s philosophy.

-Javier Mateos