"The other question is legal: suppose someone uses a quantum computer to derive the private key for an old wallet and sweep the coins. What, exactly, just happened? Did he recover abandoned property, or did he steal someone else's bitcoin?"
"Classical property law gives a fairly blunt answer. It is theft. That answer will frustrate some Bitcoiners, because Bitcoin itself does not enforce title in the way courts do."
"Old coins are not ownerless just because they are old. The actual quantum risk helps to begin with the narrower, more realistic version of the threat."
The debate surrounding Bitcoin and quantum computing involves two main questions: the technical feasibility of quantum attacks on Bitcoin's signature scheme and the legal implications of such actions. If a quantum computer derives a private key from an old wallet, the legal status of the action—whether it is theft or legitimate recovery—becomes crucial. BIP-361 proposed freezing BTC in quantum-vulnerable UTXOs, highlighting the ongoing conflict over ownership and property rights in a system that prioritizes control over title. Classical property law suggests that accessing old coins through quantum means constitutes theft.
Read at Bitcoin Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]