What if we let Quantum Hunters get Bitcoin rewards ?

[Amon BAZONGO]

Hi all,

I'd like to share a draft Informational BIP as an alternative framework to BIP-361's proposed coin freeze.

The core argument: rather than suspending Bitcoin's neutrality to prevent quantum theft, we can structure the inevitable quantum capture of exposed coins as a self-financing prize mechanism — the largest open technological prize in history.

The proposal introduces three components:

- Genesis Quantum Transaction (GQT): recognition of a successful spend from a quantum-exposed address
- Quantum Vault (QV): automatically receives 90% of captured funds, distributes periodically to proven quantum actors synchronized with the halving cycle
- Quantum Proof Address (QPA): the on-chain identity of any actor who demonstrates quantum capture capability, forming a public, unfalsifiable register of global quantum capabilities

The capturing actor receives 10% immediately as a First Reward, with ongoing distributions from the Vault — creating long-term alignment with ecosystem stability rather than incentivizing immediate liquidation.

Draft: https://github.com/amonmoce/Hunting-The-Bitcoin-One-Piece/blob/master/bip-hunting-the-bitcoin-one-piece.md

Looking forward to technical and philosophical feedback.

Best,
Amon

[Nikita Karetnikov]

Amon,

Why would anyone participate in this instead of just stealing the funds?
Also, this seems to be AI-written.

Thanks,
Nikita

[Amon BAZONGO]

Nikita,

Happy to read you.

First, with what I propose you cannot "steal the funds". If you have quantum capture capability, you will receive 10% of the amount as a reward and the rest goes to a fund for a periodic distribution.

And yes, I lay out my ideas with AI assistance. I hope it's not forbidden.

Thanks,

Amon

[RB GAMING]

Hi Amon,

I read your BIP draft, and personally I like the “One Piece” concept more than freezing Bitcoin because of quantum theft risks. The idea is creative, and theoretically it makes sense.

However, from a practical perspective, I am still concerned about the ~6.7M BTC that could become quantum-exposed. The main issue is that we cannot accurately predict how fast quantum computing will evolve in the future. If quantum capabilities become much stronger than expected, the reward mechanism could create massive incentives for attackers and potentially harm Bitcoin’s long-term stability and value.

I do not think the idea is bad at all in fact, it is one of the more interesting approaches to this problem. I just feel the risks may currently be higher than we expect, which is why freezing vulnerable coins seems like the safer option for now.

Of course, this is only my personal point of view. I may be missing some cases or thinking differently from your perspective, so please do not take my comments the wrong way. I appreciate the effort and creativity behind the proposal, and maybe with further refinement the idea could become even stronger.

Best regards,
Ronak

--
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 bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/46a49975-dbaa-48d5-b50f-36c649041933n%40googlegroups.com.

[Amon BAZONGO]

Hello Ronak and all,

Thanks for the feedback. You are right to be concerned. 

Let me add some more lights:
1. First, we suppose BIP-360 is a prerequisite to my proposal. Which means that all new addresses would be quantum-resistant. Each old-address holder is responsible to migrate to a new quantum-resistant address.

2. So when a hunter (I prefer this term instead of attacker), proves quantum capability from a monitored address, vulnerable because it didn't migrate to a new quantum-resistant address, the transaction can be redirected to mechanism that splits the transaction in two: 10% to the winning hunter and 90% to a fund that will distribute the rest following the bitcoin halving cycle.

3. So in practice, each vulnerable UTXO is a "bitcoin one piece" opportunity. So we might not even have the same hunter for all the ~6.7M BTC.

So it diffuses the risks, so we do not break bitcoin's core principles, and we still allow hunters to deserve their reward the same way miners deserve their reward.

I don't know if it adds some elements that can help clarify the idea.

Thanks for reading,

Amon