Foreign media: The founder of the coin-Ann, Zhao Chang Peng (CZ), suggested that, if the Bitcoin community were to be upgraded to an antiquity password system in the future, it would be possible to leave a migration window for the affected address and then to impose restrictions on older addresses that have not been transferred. The statements quickly focused the discussion on the wallets that were relevant to the founders of Bitcoin.
Quantum risk triggers a freeze proposal
CZ spoke about this in an interview with Alex Thorn, head of Galaxy Research. In his view, the network could first give users in possession of the affected currency approximately 6 to 12 months to complete the migration.
If the address remains unchanged after the expiry of the deadline, the level of the agreement can prevent the currency from being spent further by splitting. CZ then added that he was not advocating that Binance or any individual should freeze the relevant address, but rather that the user, miner and developer should decide together.
The controversy is focused on the Chinese mind purse.
The proposal does not address only the smart wallets of China, but the most important outside concern remains the addresses. The estimates cited in the report indicate that between 1 million and 1.1 million BTCs may be held in China.
This portion of the warehouse is valued at approximately $65 billion at the prices mentioned in the paper. As these addresses remain intact for a long time, they also constitute the most sensitive group of assets in quantum risk discussions.
The community is afraid the rules will be rewritten.
CZ ' s logic is that, if future quantum calculations are sufficient to induce a private key from the public key, long-term idle currency may first be taken by the attackers. The early freezing of old addresses would prevent the first successful attackers from transferring these assets directly.
In the view of the opponents, however, this would undermine the basic principle of the “valid signature is ownership” of Bitcoin. It was also mentioned that the discussions were similar to draft BIP-361, which also advocated a gradual restriction of vulnerable address types and a longer migration time for users.