BIP

LibertyWithLiquidity

Not at all, you're reading too much into it. The extreme opinion you describe is a loud minority on social media, I'm certain most people won't agree with those statements. Also calling someone based is always admitting that the person aligns with your values & worldview, otherwise you wouldn't call them that, simple logic. So yes, I agree with his opinions on the Zionist anti-human regime. I said that because I feel like the whole debate about the recent BIP-110 drama has really shown who is an arrogant elitist resting on their cypherpunk title and who is still righteous in their cause. Adam for example has turned out to be quite a little crybaby, acting all smug & dismissing a big part of the community that once admired him very much. He's also on the list, which is very telling, you know what list. I won't follow someone like that anymore, anywhere. And also no one who's still rallying behind him, I sort those out immediately. People really showed their true colors during this g€nocide, expressed their opinion through deafening silence or shameless support and I can't help but judge people for their stance on this issue. If I can't trust you on this, I will never trust you on Bitcoin. Peter Todd is the sole reason I'm running BIP-110 right now. Just out of spite. I digress, I hope you get my point.

Warrior_witha_Garden

Knots. BIP110. Solo miner on my own public pool (no fee). The other paid for hash is mining with ocean.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Bitcoin developers unveiled two prototype quantum-resistant wallet recovery methods: Lightning Labs CTO Olaoluwa Osuntokun proposed a zk-STARK-based recovery path for BIP-86 Taproot wallets, while StarkWare researcher Avihu Levy outlined a no-softfork scheme that may fit within Bitcoin’s current script limits. The prototypes offer concrete migration options for existing wallets amid rising concern after Google warned quantum attacks on secp256k1 may be easier than thought, though they are not yet deployed solutions. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

HSuke

Gavin left when BIP-100, 102, snd 103 were censored on Bitcoin forums

KCConnor

I expect $58K by June 7th or 8th. And I don't see BTC breaking that trend line in the summer, which is typically "sell in May and go away" season. So I expect sub-$50K by September. There's also BIP-110 and the child exploitation content issue, and a looming soft fork over it. If that hits normie news in August before the deadline, it'll drive price lower too. Hold your powder.

KCConnor

My own analysis suggests $58K by June 8th. Summer is usually not a pump season, so I expect sub-$50K by September/October. Especially if BIP-110 starts hitting normie news and everyone starts hearing about embedding the kiddy pr0nz in the blockchain, or a contentious soft fork over the issue.

PracticePenguin

\>Electrum uses a proprietary seed format and deliberately does not support BIP-39 — the standard your hardware wallet uses. Electrum is open source software so it can't be a proprietary seed format. It's supported by some other wallets like blue wallet. Electrum's seed format is superior because it does not require the user to select a derivation path. Electrum automatically uses the correct derivation path. \>To get it working you have to click a hidden “Options” button during seed entry, select “BIP39 seed,” then manually enter the derivation path your original wallet used. The options button isn't hidden. It's visible plain as day on the seed entry step. You don't have to manually enter the derivation path. You can select from some options or click on the "detect existing accounts" button to have it search for the correct one automatically. \>Without those steps, Electrum opens a valid empty wallet with no explanation. If you enter a bip39 seed and do not click on options and check bip39 then electrum won't let you proceed to the next step. It won't open an empty wallet. It just won't let you proceed.

Quirky-Reveal-1669

Yeah, thank but no thanks. Of course I relise that of a multisig scheme 2-of-3 is the most forgiving. What I meant is: what BIP, and with what hardware devices? iPhone, Trezor, Coldcard Q and or one or more Tapsigner cards. Infinite plus kodos for those who mention SLIP-39 in their quality reply.

Romanizer

Really? I thought Ethereum was structrually more vulnerable because address are re-used and public keys exposed. With BIP360, I would assume that Bitcoin is the main choice of quantum-resistant wealth accumulation going forward. However, such an attack is still a theoretical thought experiment. Cracking ECC (with SHA256 still out of reach) is at the end of the adoption curve, no matter what algorithm you use. And there is no company working towards this, as other use-cases come with economic incentives.

HSuke

BIP-360 only protects against new long-range attacks for anyone who migrates. It doesn't solve short range mempool attacks or longer-range attacks for stuck BTC in P2PK addresses and other early addresses used more than once.

Cryptizard

That's not what BIP 360 does. It only fixes taproot transactions so they don't put public key on-chain. There is no BIP to add post-quantum signatures.

locustsandhoney

BIP 360

rainy_desert

Banks can patch their systems overnight. Bitcoin requires ecosystem-wide consensus for any cryptographic upgrade, and one paper estimated ~76 days of downtime just for the transition.  SWIFT and US federal agencies are already on post-quantum timelines. Bitcoin’s leading proposal (BIP 360) is still on testnet. On top of that, 6.9M BTC already have public keys exposed on an immutable ledger. Adversaries can harvest that data now and crack it later.

Cryptizard

So it should be really easy for you to tell us which BIP it is then right? Certainly you aren’t just making it up entirely?

locustsandhoney

… so can Bitcoin? The BIP already exists

WalletMechanic

*Your funds are very likely not lost — this is a classic MultiBit change address issue.* *When you sent the $10 test transaction, Electrum created a change address using its own derivation path. But MultiBit used a completely different wallet format (not BIP44 standard), so the remaining balance went to a change address that Electrum doesn't see with the same seed.* *What you should try:* *1. In Electrum, go to Wallet → Private Keys → Export — check if there are addresses with balance you don't recognise* *2. Try importing the seed into MultiBit Classic (if you can find it) or Multibit HD* *3. Check the blockchain explorer with your old receiving address — trace where the change went* *The transaction is on-chain, the funds exist somewhere. They're just in an address your current Electrum setup isn't showing.* *Don't send any more transactions until you locate the change address.*

BittyRunes

\#BIP-360

emarkd

Seed phrases were introduced in BIP39, which was adopted late 2013. It's possible OPs wallet address predates that.

tractorix

also, try using a BIP 39 generator once

XTremeEd

BIP 360 has already been proposed to fix this before it becomes an issue. By what I’ve read the coins are safe unless a transaction is broadcast also.

Zealousideal-Elk3230

Yes, the original wallet was online. I searched using Electrum and the Atomic wallets; however, neither of those wallets could import my old wallet using my BIP39 seed code. I actually found it on the Apollo exchange, and was able to access Apollo and Artimus, which I vaguely recall that the Artimus token was part of the original Apollo coin. Anyway, I swapped it all for Bitcoin, and the wallet shows that it was completed properly. I would like to move the Bitcoin to Coinbase, but when I add my Coinbase Bitcoin wallet address, it says the address is invalid. So I think it has something to do with this being an outdated wallet, and I'm trying to figure out how to move it or update it...

RoofRich1571

The '9-minute' headline is great for clicks, but the real technical nightmare isn't the hardware scaling—it’s the **social consensus** of 10 million 'lost' coins. Sure, we can patch the protocol with BIP-360, but how do you migrate **Satoshi’s 1.1 million BTC** or the billions in 'zombie wallets' that don't have an active user to sign a transition transaction? If we don't migrate them, they become a permanent 'bounty' for the first state-actor with a stable Qubit array. If we *do* hard-fork to burn or lock them, we’ve just turned Bitcoin into a centralized database managed by a committee. The 'Gods' of cryptography are basically telling us we have a choice: 1. Maintain 'Immutability' and let Quantum computers slowly drain the foundations of the network. 2. Maintain 'Security' and admit that the 'Code is Law' era died the moment we had to manually intervene to stop a Shor’s algorithm exploit. I’m looking forward to the 2028 'Civil War' where half the network refuses to upgrade because 'Quantum isn't real' while the other half watches their cold storage turn into a public donation. At least the **Symmetric encryption** crowd can laugh at us from their AES-256 bunkers while we're arguing over which multi-sig flavor tastes less like defeat. Is Bitcoin actually 'un-hackable' if the only way to save it is to break its primary promise of decentralization?

VeryThicknLong

Would we have to do anything as BTC owners if it went BIP360?

RigPilot

Academic is on the SLIP 39 list - Shamir secret from Trezor (authors of original BIP39) https://trezor.io/slip39

BuyTheDip_Repeat

Agreed, BIP360 is a solid move, but the real challenge will be achieving network consensus and ensuring a safe migration for all users.

jkl2035

Time to react now - BIP360 is there

HedgehogGlad9505

We have computers to help us. With a book's PDF version, a program can give us all 2048 words' locations. Then you pick 12 and verify them in the paper book before write down. Also, the 4 letters criteria IS in BIP39 spec itself.

rieglerp

You technically can, but think about the practical side: with a letter-based approach for 12 words, you're looking at up to 48 code sets. For 24 words, that's up to 96. Now add a second wallet — you're encoding and verifying 192 individual letter references. The chance of making a single mistake while encoding or decoding goes up significantly with every additional reference, and one wrong letter means a wrong word means a wrong seed. Also, using only the first 4 letters is not recommended — BIP39 has word pairs that share the first 4 characters (like "work" and "world", or "sea" and "search"). You'd want full words to be safe, which makes the letter approach even longer. A purpose-built book with a word index lets you look up each seed word directly and get one code per word — 24 codes for 24 words, done. Less room for error, faster to encode and verify.

whatwilly0ubuild

The 500,000 qubit estimate needs context because it obscures the real engineering gap. Current quantum computers have thousands of physical qubits but extremely few logical qubits. The difference matters enormously. You need many physical qubits to create one error-corrected logical qubit that can actually run algorithms reliably. The 500,000 number is likely physical qubits, and the ratio of physical to logical is currently terrible, somewhere around 1000:1 for useful error correction. So you're really talking about needing machines orders of magnitude more capable than what exists. The 6.9 million vulnerable BTC framing is somewhat misleading. These are coins in addresses where the public key has been exposed, meaning the address has been spent from at least once. Coins sitting in addresses that have only received and never sent are protected by an additional hash layer. The real vulnerability window is between when you broadcast a transaction and when it confirms, because your public key is exposed during that period. A sufficiently fast quantum computer could theoretically derive your private key and submit a competing transaction. The timeline uncertainty is the honest answer. Quantum hardware progress isn't linear or predictable. Could be 10 years, could be 25. Anyone giving confident dates is guessing. What actually matters practically. The cryptographic community has post-quantum signature schemes ready. The migration is a coordination problem not a research problem. Bitcoin's BIP-360 and similar proposals exist. The transition will be messy but the path exists. The chains that drag their feet on migration will have problems, but the industry has time to execute if it starts moving seriously.

OrangePillar

BIP 47 (PayNyms) already have this covered. They aren’t great for privacy, though.

nonkeywayzee

In Bitcoin we have Payment Requests (implemented by BitBix and Trezor), BIP-353 addresses (human readable addresses), QR codes, contacts, Silent Payment Addresses and a million more solutions, also Breez (a Lightning wallet) used to have something exactly like what you are proposing but nobody actually used it because this causes more problems that those it solves. This problem was solved years ago, just use a wallet the implements good UX/UI stuff.

johnturtle

> The timeline for quantum computers threatening Bitcoin's elliptic curve cryptography is uncertain. it's actually not that uncertain anymore. NSA set a 2030-2033 deadline and Google has recently advanced Q-day to 2029. IBM is investing 150 billion in quantum computing. this softfork is beneficial but it should have been activated long ago, along with other technical improvements like BIP 118. let's not delay an urgent quantum softfork with something that was not prioritized for several years.

darosior

For more information about BIP 54, see Mike's website that was recently shared here. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1sbea6t/bip54org\_informational\_site\_for\_bip54s\_consensus/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1sbea6t/bip54org_informational_site_for_bip54s_consensus/)

bitschmidty

I tried to address that here: [https://bip54.org/#faq-quantum](https://bip54.org/#faq-quantum) "*Quantum computing resistance is a separate concern from the vulnerabilities BIP54 addresses. BIP54 is about fixing specific bugs and attack vectors in Bitcoin's existing consensus rules: timewarp, slow validation, merkle tree exploits, and duplicate transactions.* *Quantum-resistant cryptography would require a different set of changes (possibly a new address format and signature algorithm) and is still an area of active research. The timeline for quantum computers threatening Bitcoin's elliptic curve cryptography is uncertain.* *BIP54 should be evaluated on its own merits as a security upgrade. It neither helps nor hinders future quantum resistance efforts, and there's no reason to delay fixing known vulnerabilities while waiting for quantum-resistant proposals to mature.*"

jkl2035

Think it will be more an early to mid 2030 thing, but we have to Act now to be ready. BIP360 is there for BTC

TimeTraveller2020

The 9 minutes headline is doing a lot of work that the actual research doesn’t support. The gap between ‘theoretically possible with X qubits’ and ‘practically achievable with real hardware’ is where most of these threat timelines fall apart. The more honest framing is that quantum risk to Bitcoin is a Schelling point problem as much as a technical one. The moment credible quantum capability looks close, the rational move is to move coins to quantum-resistant addresses before you’re forced to. Which means the actual attack window on vulnerable wallets is narrower than the hardware timeline suggests anyone paying attention will migrate. The 6.9 million BTC in vulnerable wallets is the real number worth watching. A significant chunk of that is provably lost coins Satoshi’s wallets, early miners, dead keys. Quantum unlocking genuinely lost Bitcoin would be economically chaotic in a way that’s completely separate from the security threat to active users. BIP-360 moving forward is the right signal to watch. The Bitcoin development process is slow by design so the fact it’s already in testing suggests the people closest to the protocol think the timeline is serious enough to act now rather than later. The actual unknown isn’t whether quantum gets there it’s whether the upgrade coordination happens fast enough across an ecosystem with no central authority to mandate migration.

CipherScarlatti

BIP-360 Fix: If quantum computer = NO

drincanngao

You can use the Ian Coleman BIP39 tool to check those phrases. For safety, download the bip39-standalone.html file from his GitHub(https://github.com/iancoleman/bip39/releases) and run it offline. Once you input your seed phrase, look at the 'Derived Addresses' section. You can then copy those addresses and check their balances on a blockchain explorer. If you remember your addresses starting with 'bc1...', you'll need to select the 'BIP84' tab under the Derivation Path section.

Bakkus1987

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. There are BIP's out there adressing this issue, all you can do is run a node and run the software you would like to see for now. My question is, what bearing does AA have on this issue? From my point of view, it's none or very minimal.

IInsulince

I don’t think anyone truly believes quantum isn’t, at least theoretically, a threat. Some folks believe it won’t ever come to fruition, others think it’s far away, and far fewer think it’s right on the doorstep which is a common narrative lately. The only case where alarm bells should be going off (global alarm bells, not just Bitcoin ones) is that last case, where quantum is almost here and nobody had time to prepare. That’s three does not appear to be the case. So either: 1. Quantum won’t ever come to fruition (possible but doubtful, scientific breakthroughs and innovations will continue) in which case Bitcoin is fine 2. Quantum won’t come anytime soon, which gives plenty of time to layer in solutions, like BIP-360 and undoubtedly others as the threat unfolds.

rieglerp

Update: there's now a second book. A few people asked about alternatives to the children's book — especially for those traveling solo or anyone who'd rather not have a kids' book on their nightstand without kids in the house. "777 Wisdoms for Every Day" just went live on Amazon. Same concept: all 2,048 BIP39 words, works as a book cipher the exact same way. But instead of a children's story, it's a collection of 777 numbered daily wisdoms — the kind of book that fits on any shelf, in any bag, anywhere. [https://www.bip39books.com/777-wisdoms/](https://www.bip39books.com/777-wisdoms/)

riscten

Living under a rock, I see. Even if someone did have a powerful enough quantum computer, today, only the legacy addresses and those who had spent (exposing their public key) would be at high risk. Anyone who doesn't reuse addresses and switched to Segwit (bc1q...) is largely safe. And then there's BIP-360: [https://bip360.org/](https://bip360.org/)

SillySpoof

I understand being worried, but yes, it's worked on. BIP-360 includes a quantum resistant address type. It's been merged into the BIP repo, but it's not accepted on the mainnet. I think other quantum resistant solutions are proposed too, so we'll see. But it's worked on, yes. When Satoshi's wallet sends money somewhere we know it's been cracked.

infernal_celery

So I’m a boring sod and I actually read the report this is based on. Ignore all this quantum can/cannot in the next decade for now, the report basically suggests: - SegWit is safe until the wallet broadcasts a spend - the attack for SegWit is a mempool attack, or comes from reading legacy mempool data and taking time to decrypt. I have to presume a quantum computer is pretty expensive. Like, enough that there isn’t one ready to attack every address in the mempool at once. Logically, that means they’re targeting big wallets rather than mine. So my plan:  1. Adopt BIP 360 and whatever follows that up to make BTC quantum resistant. 2. If it hasn’t happened at Q Day, send everything to a fresh SegWit wallet in separate small transactions, have a pint, and wait for this all to blow over. Perfect? No. But I reckon miners will adopt a quantum fork pretty damn quickly if it comes to it. That’s even assuming the stable logical qubits can be generated, which is a maybe.

Romanizer

The thing is that the timeline is also shrinking mainly based on assumptions and not a lot of tangible improvement towards this attack angle. It became more plausible that a quantum attack could happen in the future, but it is not a certainty. But in general I agree. There already is a draft change proposal with BIP 360 that already has been tested and now needs approval and consensus to rollout.

n8dahwgg

Published by eth foundation lol. Yes they have. For years. BIP 360

jkl2035

Es geht nicht um „schützen“, das geht m.e. gegen das BTC Konzept, BIP360 liefert eine Antwort wie mit diesen Wallets umgegangen werden kann…

Big-Finding2976

How will BIP360 protect those?

anymonero

BIP-360 doesn't introduce quantum-safe signatures. It's as secure as P2PKH.

Big-Finding2976

That's nonsense. If addresses created since 2017 were "very quantum safe" people could just transfer BTC from their old wallets to a new address and BIP360 would be unnecessary.

bitusher

For others , here is an easier way to do this with dice With BIP39 , part of the last word includes the checksum which makes sure the seed word is valid and no typos or misordering occurs. Thus with this feature you can generate a valid 12th or 24th word checksum by entering either 11 words or 23 words that you generate with your own source of entropy with something like using dice or flipping a coin. Some people do this because they are paranoid with the software wallet so they prefer to generate their own seed offline. Ideally , its better to do this in a hardware wallet like - https://help.blockstream.com/hc/en-us/articles/20177648363545-Create-a-recovery-phrase-using-dice https://help.blockstream.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/21328564164505 but if you don't want to use a hardware wallet and want a free option than blue wallet can work. Thus after installing blue you would turn off wifi and data on your phone to insure its offline and use this feature after rolling dice Some guides- https://bitbox.swiss/blog/roll-the-dice-generate-your-own-seed/ https://bitbox.swiss/bitbox02/BitBox_Diceware_LookupTable.pdf?ref=bitbox.swiss or https://help.blockstream.com/hc/en-us/articles/20177648363545-Create-a-recovery-phrase-using-dice https://help.blockstream.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/21328564164505 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5nejoEGWFw Than you enter in the 11 or 23 words into blue wallet "generate the final Mnemonic word" to generate the last word . This can all be done offline so you don't need to trust blue wallet. Another way of doing it is using Blue wallets built in Diceware feature discussed here : https://bluewallet.io/docs/manual-entropy/ or https://www.whatisbitcoin.com/security/generate-your-seed-phrase

Financial_Design_801

Per community notes- There was no confirmed breakthrough or imminent threat. The recent Google quantum headlines are about future risk planning, not current capability, there is no machine today that can break any encryption, let alone Bitcoin. We are at ~1,000 noisy qubits today. 500K fault-tolerant qubits is a decade+ away minimum. BIP-360 and post-quantum testnets are already live. The real story here is Google publishing scary numbers to justify their quantum budget, not an actual threat to BTC.

ace250674

The 2026 Solution: BIP360 (Pay-to-Merkle-Root) ​Bitcoin developers aren't sitting still. A major proposal called BIP360 is currently the leading strategy for quantum resistance: ​Quantum-Resistant Signatures: It introduces new signature types (like "Lattice-based" or "Lamport" signatures) that are built with math problems that quantum computers cannot solve efficiently. ​The Migration: Users will likely have to move their funds from "Old Bitcoin" addresses to "Quantum-Safe" addresses. This is similar to moving your money from an old wooden box to a modern high-security vault.

jkl2035

Agree that it’s Not a tomorrow story, but looking at the roadmaps of the leading quantum labs it might be closer than you think. My worry esp for BTC is that the threat is not taken serious. Looking at the current BIP360 proposal it might take 3-4y to do a migration

HSuke

People are being censored. You can't even discuss certain BIP proposals in this sub.

HSuke

People are being censored. You can't even discuss certain BIP proposals in this sub.

jkl2035

It’s true, just read out BIP360 by Hunter Beast, quite neutral View by him on that topic imho

wavingwandsince1999

You're not doing anything wrong; this is just how Jade works. Jade doesn't let you import an existing seed directly for security reasons. But you don't need to "create" a new wallet on Jade; your seed + passphrase combination already IS your wallet. It's the same wallet every time you enter that combination. What you're looking for is the BIP39 passphrase feature (sometimes called a "25th word"). Here's the flow: 1. Set up Jade with your existing seed phrase 2. Add your passphrase when prompted (or in advanced settings) 3. Jade will derive the same wallet addresses every time you use that seed + passphrase combo BIP85 is for generating child seeds from a master — that's a different use case. You don't need it here.

jkl2035

We have to start taking this more serious, think there is a good approach with BIP360

Rare_Rich6713

This is actually a solid breakdown, especially the point about buying time vs full quantum resistance. A lot of people jump straight to Bitcoin is broken by quantum, but like you said, there are layers to the problem. Minimizing public key exposure like with BIP-360 / P2MR is a very practical first move it reduces the attack surface today without forcing a rushed migration to new cryptography. The harder part is definitely step two: switching signature schemes. That’s not just a technical upgrade, it’s a coordination challenge across the entire network. What’s interesting is how this connects to what some newer architectures are trying to do already. For example, QVM is built with the assumption that quantum resistance shouldn’t be an afterthought. Instead of patching later, it supports post-quantum cryptography at the execution layer, plus flexibility in programming languages. Not saying Bitcoin should copy that approach directly different design philosophy entirely, but it does show what a “from day one” quantum-resistant stack looks like vs the gradual migration path Bitcoin is taking.

Mantis-Prawn

Yep, because you will back up (on paper, or stamped on metal) two things: 1) Your 12-24 word seedphrase 2) Your passphrase With these two you can recover your BIP39 wallet into any other wallet (no matter the brand, nor type (hot/cold).  The great thing about having your seed in a hardware wallet, is that it never actually touches your computer. You factually sign transactions (PSBT) on the usb or airgapped device. Which means that no hacker can steal your funds, not even if you have any malware running on your local pc. 

kikkerdril

BIP39 was actually introduced in September 2013. While Electrum already used seed phrases since 2011. [https://coldbit.com/blogs/blog/what-types-of-mnemonic-seed-phrases-are-used-in-bitcoin](https://coldbit.com/blogs/blog/what-types-of-mnemonic-seed-phrases-are-used-in-bitcoin)

ClonedY

The Block Size War remains incomplete without mentioning these heroes who wrote the BIPs... * [BIP 100](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki) by [Jeff Garzik](https://x.com/jgarzik), [Tom Harding](https://x.com/dgenr818) & Dagur Valberg Johannsson * [BIP 101](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki) by [Gavin Andresen](https://x.com/gavinandresen) * [BIP 102](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0102.mediawiki) by [Jeff Garzik](https://x.com/jgarzik) * [BIP 103](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0103.mediawiki) by [Pieter Wuille](https://x.com/pwuille) * [BIP 104](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0104.mediawiki) by t.khan * [BIP 105](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0105.mediawiki) by [BtcDrak](https://x.com/btcdrak) * [BIP 106](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0106.mediawiki) by [Upal Chakraborty](https://x.com/upalc) * [BIP 107](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0107.mediawiki) by [Washington Y. Sanchez](https://x.com/drwasho) * [BIP 109](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0109.mediawiki) by [Gavin Andresen](https://x.com/gavinandresen)

wancruz

BTC’s BIP 360 testnet shows quantum-resistant transactions are becoming tangible. The real edge will be with ecosystems **actively running testnets with quantum-ready tools**, preparing assets for next-generation threats.

neosBentSpoon

This is just how bitcoin development works. Anyone can make a proposal, launch their own testnet, etc. If the BIP addresses a real concern (according to the node runners, miners, and developers) then it will attract attention and eventually adopted or rejected. In this case BIP 360, which has had decent amount of attention from the community, is moving on from just a proposal and a few devs running it on their machines to having a public testnet where they can test on a bigger network and find more edge cases. It's still years away from adoption if it gets adopted at all but it's good that it's out there for testing.

bongosformongos

How so? Afaik it is run on a separate testnet at this moment. So how would we get consensus from the main net when the mainnet can't even interact with the testnet? Signalling for adoption can only start once the BIP is ready to be implemented as it is subject to changes. Maybe I'm dumb here, but I don't get how this would speed up anything.

DangKilla

ELI18 This is basically a test. A BIP is a proposal. Anyone can propose. You get an incremental number e.g. BIP-123 or 360 in this case. A test net test means it’s an online test. I guess that means someone has a way to test it with or without a quantum computer, not sure at all, not my arwa.

Cryptizard

This doesn't do anything to specifically address quantum resistance. It just fixes a problem that was introduced with Taproot that made those transactions *especially* vulnerable to quantum attacks. Taproot addresses (P2TR) reveal your public key on-chain, similar to the original wallet addresses (P2PK). This new BIP just fixes Taproot with a new kind of address (P2MR) that gives it the same level of security that all other BTC wallets already have with the current address type (P2WPKH). Taproot addresses are now only vulnerable to real-time quantum attacks that can break the public key within one block window (a few minutes) because the public key is only revealed when wallets spend money. Previously you could take your time and break the public key whenever you want because it was permanently on the chain. It is still necessary to upgrade the signature scheme to something truly post-quantum secure. That will happen eventually, but it's not this easy.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; BTQ Technologies deployed Bitcoin Quantum testnet v0.3.0, implementing Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360 (BIP 360) to enable quantum-resistant Bitcoin transactions. BIP 360 introduces Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR) to address vulnerabilities in Taproot transactions exposed to quantum computing attacks. The testnet includes wallet tooling and has over 100,000 mined blocks. While Bitcoin Core has not acted on BIP 360, BTQ's independent implementation pressures adoption and positions the firm as a key player in post-quantum Bitcoin infrastructure. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

rkalla

This is basically research off to the side - why would that be a hard no? Worse case this does nothing - best case the findings and ideation drive a more directed BIP back into Bitcoin and you STILL need the network to signal for the adoption. This is like saying "hard no" to University research into new drugs that aren't performed at Pfizer... 🤔

Mr_Ander5on

As a long term store of value, Bitcoin is the only one. For blockchain technology, I don’t want Bitcoin to be the only one. I don’t want spam on the bitcoin blockchain, there’s a huge market for that and Bitcoin is not best technology. People don’t need the best decentralized platform ever protecting a cat NFT. Run BIP-110 and keep Bitcoin monetary and use the other faster blockchains for the tech stuff. 99.9% of the other coins are a scam. There’s a place for eth and sol, but personally I don’t buy them - I dca ICP. People will say it’s a scam, great - don’t buy it - make the same mistake you did writing off Bitcoin without researching it in 2010 (like me lol.) Read the ICP white paper. Look at the recent news - signing deals with governments, being used in stores. It’s crazy fast, has actual use case and has chain key technology for integration with other chains. The market cap is like 1.5B. Its a 100X or more in 5-10 years, that’s only 150B which is 2/3 of mcap of ethereum. TLDR: mostly btc and less icp

xiskghferx

He couldn't reorganise words engraved into inox... Also have at least 2 seed copies at 2 locations. Combine with BIP39 passphrase on 3rd location AND in password manager.

lexicon_riot

1. Michael Saylor has institutionalized WSB-level degeneracy to make MSTR the largest holder of Bitcoin, last year was paper Bitcoin summer 2. Lightning Network growth and maturation 3. Ordinals, Metaprotocols, BitVM 4. People want covenants but no covenants yet 5. Core vs. Knots relay policy debate, now with a push for BIP-110 UASF 6. Jack Dorsey, Steak 'n Shake, etc. pushing payments adoption All in all it's been a pretty wild few years. Lots of growth and excitement, but not without its drama and noise. Plenty of crazy tech people are building now lol

AutoModerator

Post is by: Ok-Tumbleweed-2416 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1rvnwac/crypto/ The BIP-110 debate looks like 2017 all over again, and the data already killed the proposal Bitcoin is back in a governance war. BIP-110 proposes a temporary soft-fork to limit arbitrary data on the blockchain. The stated goal is removing spam. The actual targets are Ordinals and Runes. Adam Back and Jameson Lopp are both publicly opposing it, arguing that once you show the world Bitcoin can be changed by pressuring a few entities, regulators will never stop trying. That is the real slippery slope, not block size. The technical case fell apart already. Developer Martin Habovstiak broadcasted a 66 KB image directly on-chain to prove the filter is trivially bypassed. You cannot stop data, you can only damage network integrity. We saw what happens when controversial consensus changes get forced through in 2017. BCH and BSV were the result. Splitting the community again at this stage of institutional adoption seems like the worst possible outcome. Do you think BIP-110 has any real chance of... *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Previous_Blueberry_5

Satorilock works great, no letters or words to stamp. Just punch in your code using the grid provided on the plate and whenever you need to use your seed phrase you can decode it using the BIP39.

RepresentativeBug287

What are the chance we land on a random wallet by brute forcing BIP39 seed phrases or randomly guessing a seed phrase which has funds in it?

wancruz

Exactly, address reuse is a big no-no. I like that BIP 360 is exploring P2Q, it’ll be interesting to see how these types might tie into broader quantum-resistant strategies down the line.

DemandNew8116

ummm what brother its not rocket science don't overthink it. use BIP39, it's made to make our lives easier. you can create a multisig if that makes you more peaceful, make it be 2 out of 3 or something like that. also, why not invest in a hardware wallet that you can trust? those are literally designed to aleviate your concerns

Aussiehash

Perhaps try a contemporary release of Electrum from 2012 / 2013 which was before Electrum added BIP39 support

Comfortable-Ant-3250

Abbiamo verificato e tutte e 12 le parole sono presenti nell'elenco ufficiale delle parole BIP39 e risultano valide anche in Electrum v3, il che ci rende ancora più confusi sul motivo per cui il seed non è valido.

LoveLaughLlama

That depends on your seed phrase security. There are no known problems in the Trezor seed phrase generation so as long as you are 100% you haven't exposed your seed phrase there is no risk. Importing your seed phrase can also save you transfer fees which could add up if you have a large amount or a ton of UTXOs. But if you want to make a new seed phrase on the Q and take advantage of added entropy from dice rolls etc. there is nothing wrong with that either. This is all if you have a standard BIP39 Seed phrase and not the SLIP39(20 word) that Trezor also supports. Coldcard doesn't support SLIP39 so you would have to create a new seed phrase and transfer if you chose the SLIP39 when setting up your Trezor.

__Ken_Adams__

Electrum wallets use the same word list as bip39 but they aren't compatible with bip39 wallets. If your seed phrase was generated in Electrum that would explain why you're getting "invalid seed phrase" in other wallets. However, Electrum didn't start using the bip39 word list until 2014 so that eliminates that possibility if your client is positive about the date of the wallet. Here's what chatgpt had to say: While it is technically impossible for a wallet to have been generated using the BIP39 standard in 2012 (as it was proposed in 2013), it is highly probable that the user has a "Legacy" Electrum phrase. There are two primary reasons why a 2012 phrase might appear to be BIP39: - Wordlist Overlap: The original Electrum 1.0 (2011) wordlist and the BIP39 list share approximately 573 words in common. If the user's 12-word seed only uses common English words from that shared set, the phrase will appear to be "BIP39 compliant" even though it predates the standard. - Non-Standardization: Before 2013, several early wallet services (like Blockchain.info) experimented with mnemonic recovery phrases. Some of these used their own proprietary lists that also happened to use common words that later appeared in BIP39.  How to test this theory If the user wants to confirm if it is a Legacy Electrum seed or something else, they should try the following in the Electrum Desktop Wallet: Select "I already have a seed": When setting up a new wallet. Check for Checksum Errors: If they enter the words and the "Next" button is grayed out, it means the phrase lacks the BIP39 checksum (which 2012 seeds do not have). Use "Legacy" Options: Click Options and select Legacy or Old-style Electrum seed. If that fails, they can try clicking Options and selecting BIP39 seed, though this will usually result in a checksum error for a true 2012 phrase. Important: If the phrase is from a 2012 Blockchain.info wallet, it may actually be a password recovery mnemonic, which is not a seed phrase and cannot be used to derive keys directly.

__Ken_Adams__

>There were no seed phrases in 2012 Yes there were. BIP39 that standardized a 2048 word list didn't come out until 2013 but deterministic wallets using seed phrases have existed since 2011. Electrum introduced the first seed phrase wallets in 2011 that used a 1,626 word list and was deterministic but not hierarchical deterministic & also did not use a checksum.

B18O

As per ChatGPT: “A 24-word seed phrase (from BIP-39) represents about 2²⁵⁶ possible combinations (≈1.16 × 10⁷⁷). Even if you had 1 billion computers, each making 1 trillion guesses per second, brute-forcing the entire space would still take roughly 3 × 10⁴⁸ years—about 10³⁸ times longer than the age of the universe.”

HashCrafter45

the 12 word seed confusion makes sense because BIP39 wasn't finalised until late 2013. a July 2012 [Blockchain.info](http://Blockchain.info) wallet almost certainly used their proprietary backup system, not BIP39. the wallet identifier and encrypted JSON file are what you actually need, not a seed phrase in the modern sense. the 12 words your client has might be a Blockchain.info specific backup format that predates BIP39 entirely. try the Blockchain.info wallet recovery tool specifically with the wallet identifier and JSON file if you have them, that's the right path for that era. Dave Bitcoin is also worth contacting, he specialises in exactly this kind of historical wallet recovery.

Comfortable-Ant-3250

Thanks. Yes we are also thinking it may not be BIP39. We will try testing old wallet versions from that time.

Sad-Equivalent9293

For bitcoiners it’s important not to reuse address and als there’s a new BIP 360 that proposes new address type P2Q which is also same as P2TR

0xZennite

MPC wallets are a solid step forward for usability. The biggest win is removing that single point of failure — lose one key shard and you're not wiped out like you would be with a lost seed phrase. The tradeoff is you're trusting the MPC provider's infrastructure and key shard management, so it's worth checking how they handle that before going all-in. For everyday use and onboarding new people though, it's way less intimidating than explaining BIP-39 to someone who just wants to buy their first crypto.

0xZennite

MPC wallets are a solid step forward for usability. The biggest win is removing that single point of failure — lose one key shard and you're not wiped out like you would be with a lost seed phrase. The tradeoff is you're trusting the MPC provider's infrastructure and key shard management, so it's worth checking how they handle that before going all-in. For everyday use and onboarding new people though, it's way less intimidating than explaining BIP-39 to someone who just wants to buy their first crypto.

Cryptizard

This is a bad summary. BIP-360 doesn't do anything to protect old wallets with their private keys on the chain, like Satoshi's. It just closes a hole in Taproot that is *currently* resulting in public keys being put on the chain.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Bitcoin developers have merged BIP-360, introducing Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR) to enhance quantum resistance and protect vulnerable coins, including Satoshi Nakamoto's estimated 1 million BTC stored in early Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK) addresses. This upgrade addresses risks from future quantum decryption threats. A debated proposal suggests freezing coins in legacy addresses that fail to migrate to quantum-safe formats, raising concerns about Bitcoin's immutability. Implementation will require years and community consensus. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

jkl2035

Think the challenging Part is that we don’t know when it will be there, IonQs roadmap indicated 2-3y… BTC Migration will take 3-4y based on BIP360 estimation, think it’s risky not to start now

Arsenic_and_Cheese

the only path that did show up was BIP84 and i run into the $0 no transactions issue again

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; The article reviews the top 10 Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) shaping Bitcoin's future. Key proposals include BIP-119 (covenants for enhanced security), BIP-118 (improving the Lightning Network), BIP-352 (Silent Payments for privacy), and BIP-324 (encrypted node communication). Other proposals like Drivechains (BIP-300) and MuSig2 enhance scalability, privacy, and usability. The debates focus on balancing innovation, security, and decentralization, reflecting Bitcoin's evolving role as a payment network, savings technology, and programmable platform. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Helper_kev

BRD Wallet Legacy: Used a specific path, often m/0' or m/44'/0'/0'. Modern Wallets: Often default to SegWit (m/84'/0'/0'), which didn't exist or wasn't the standard for BRD in 2017 Here is the solution: Use Ian Coleman’s Tool To find the exact addresses that hold the funds, you can use the Ian Coleman BIP39 tool. Important: For security, download the offline version of this tool from GitHub and run it on a computer not connected to the internet. Never enter a recovery phrase into a website while online. Enter the 12-word phrase into the BIP39 Mnemonic field. Scroll down to the Derivation Path section. Switch between the tabs: BIP44 (Legacy), BIP49 (SegWit), and BIP84 (Native SegWit). Check the "Derived Addresses" list at the bottom for each tab. Look for any address that matches what you remember or has a transaction history on a blockchain explorer.

Virtual_Wallaby7338

Look into BitcoinII (BC2). It’s a new SHA‑256 Proof‑of‑Work cryptocurrency built to revive original Bitcoin principles: fair mining, decentralization, and simplicity. It uses V27.1 of BTC code, which avoids all of the OP_RETURN and BIP-110 drama.

Virtual_Wallaby7338

Look into BitcoinII (BC2). It’s a new SHA‑256 Proof‑of‑Work cryptocurrency built to revive original Bitcoin principles: fair mining, decentralization, and simplicity. It uses V27.1 of BTC code, which avoids all of the OP_RETURN and BIP-110 drama.

Virtual_Wallaby7338

Look into BitcoinII (BC2). It’s a new SHA‑256 Proof‑of‑Work cryptocurrency built to revive original Bitcoin principles: fair mining, decentralization, and simplicity. It uses V27.1 of BTC code, which avoids all of the OP_RETURN and BIP-110 drama.

Virtual_Wallaby7338

Look into BitcoinII (BC2). It’s a new SHA‑256 Proof‑of‑Work cryptocurrency built to revive original Bitcoin principles: fair mining, decentralization, and simplicity. It uses V27.1 of BTC code, which avoids all of the OP_RETURN and BIP-110 drama.

Virtual_Wallaby7338

Look into BitcoinII (BC2). It’s a new SHA‑256 Proof‑of‑Work cryptocurrency built to revive original Bitcoin principles: fair mining, decentralization, and simplicity. It uses V27.1 of BTC code, which avoids all of the OP_RETURN and BIP-110 drama.