量子計算機會構成很大的困境。如何處理Nakamoto的Satoshi的比特幣和其他數百萬BTC？

比特幣開發商Agustin Cruz提出了一個堅硬的分叉，該叉子將迫使所有人轉移其BTC以解決對量子攻擊的抵抗力。

The quantum computer will pose a big dilemma. What to do with Satoshi Nakamoto’s bitcoins and other millions of lost BTC?

量子計算機會構成很大的困境。如何處理Nakamoto的Satoshi的比特幣和其他數百萬BTC？

Bitcoin and the quantum threat

比特幣和量子威脅

Bitcoin developer Agustin Cruz proposes a hard fork that would force everyone to transfer their BTC to addresses resistant to quantum attacks.

比特幣開發商Agustin Cruz提出了一個堅硬的分叉，該叉子將迫使所有人轉移其BTC以解決對量子攻擊的抵抗力。

His BIP suggests a mandatory migration period from current Bitcoin addresses (i.e., addresses secured by ECDSA) to addresses resistant to quantum computers. After a certain date, bitcoins that have not moved will become unrecoverable.

他的BIP表明，從當前的比特幣地址（即，ECDSA保護的地址）進行了強制性遷移期，以解決對量子計算機的抵抗力。在一定日期之後，未移動的比特幣將無法恢復。

Before addressing the philosophical and technical questions raised by this BIP, let’s emphasize that the quantum threat is not a fantasy.

在解決這個BIP提出的哲學和技術問題之前，讓我們強調量子威脅不是幻想。

For Microsoft, the quantum computer will be a reality within several “years, not decades”. Google and IBM also predict that the major technological breakthrough is closer than many think.

對於微軟而言，量子計算機將在“幾年，而不是幾十年”之內成為現實。 Google和IBM還預測，主要的技術突破比許多人想像的要近。

Scott Aaronson, a researcher with 25 years of experience in quantum computing, recently sounded the alarm:

擁有25年量子計算經驗的研究人員斯科特·亞倫森（Scott Aaronson）最近發出了警報：

I had until now been used to saying that we might, eventually, consider the necessity to migrate from elliptic curve cryptography to cryptographic systems plausibly resistant to a quantum attack. I think today the message must be: yes, clearly, worry. Have a plan.

到目前為止，我一直被用來說我們最終認為有必要從橢圓曲線密碼學遷移到密碼系統，從而可能抵抗量子攻擊。我認為今天的信息必須是：是的，顯然，擔心。有一個計劃。

Pierre-Luc Dallaire-Demers, a researcher at the University of Calgary, estimates that “there are about five years left before a quantum computer can break the elliptic curve keys that secure bitcoins”.

卡爾加里大學的研究人員Pierre-Luc Dallae-Demers估計：“量子計算機還剩五年，量子計算機可以打破橢圓曲線鍵的鍵。”

It is therefore time to revive the debate.

因此，是時候復興辯論了。

The dilemma…

困境…

Should we prevent Google or Microsoft from taking control of bitcoins that have not migrated to resistant addresses? That is, the million bitcoins mined by Satoshi Nakamoto and the other two million BTC estimated to be lost?

我們是否應該防止Google或Microsoft控制尚未遷移到抵抗地址的比特幣？也就是說，由薩托島納卡本（Satoshi Nakamoto）開采的百萬比特幣和其他200萬BTC估計會丟失？

Jameson Lopp published a long article on his blog discussing the pros and cons. The cypherpunk agrees with Agustin Cruz and recommends destroying BTC vulnerable to quantum computers. Here is his latest talk on the subject:

詹姆森·洛普（Jameson Lopp）在他的博客上發表了一篇長篇文章，討論了利弊。 Cypherpunk與Agustin Cruz一致，並建議破壞BTC容易受到量子計算機的影響。這是他關於這個主題的最新演講：

Pieter Wuille, the most experienced Bitcoin developer (25 BIPs), is on the same wavelength:

Pieter Wuille是最有經驗的比特幣開發人員（25 BIP），處於相同的波長：

Of course bitcoins should be destroyed. If and when (and it’s a big if) the existence of a quantum computer capable of breaking cryptography becomes a credible threat, we will have no choice but to remove the ability to spend bitcoins secured by ECDSA cryptography. Otherwise, millions of BTC become vulnerable to theft. I don’t see how any currency can maintain any value in such a context. And this affects everyone, even those who have moved their bitcoins to resistant addresses [because this theft could lower the bitcoin price].

當然，比特幣應該被銷毀。如果以及何時（如果是很大），能夠破壞密碼學的量子計算機的存在成為一個可信的威脅，我們別無選擇，只能消除花費ECDSA加密保護的比特幣的能力。否則，數以百萬計的BTC很容易受到盜竊的影響。我看不出任何貨幣在這種情況下如何保持任何價值。這會影響每個人，甚至那些將比特幣轉移到抵抗地址的人（因為此盜竊可能會降低比特幣價格）。

Others, like the CEO of Tether, do not seem overly worried:

其他人，例如Tether的首席執行官，似乎並不過於擔心：

Resistant addresses will be added to Bitcoin before the quantum threat becomes serious. Everyone alive (and with access to their wallets) will transfer their bitcoins to this new type of address. All lost bitcoins, including those of Satoshi (if he is no longer alive), will be hacked and put back into circulation.

在量子威脅變得嚴重之前，耐藥地址將被添加到比特幣中。每個人都活著（並可以使用錢包）將其比特幣轉移到這種新型地址。所有丟失的比特幣，包括Satoshi的比特幣（如果他不再活著），都將被黑客入侵並恢復流通。

Did Satoshi Nakamoto want Microsoft to get hold of his bitcoins? Unlikely.

薩托·納卡本（Satoshi Nakamoto）是否希望微軟掌握他的比特幣？不太可能。

Incentive

激勵

Some point out that destroying bitcoins would deny the network’s foundations. First: resistance to censorship. No one should be able to deprive others of their bitcoins. Not to mention the sacred tradition of evolving the code through backward-compatible soft forks.

有人指出，破壞比特幣將否認網絡的基礎。第一：抵抗審查制度。沒有人應該能夠剝奪他人的比特幣。更不用說通過向後兼容的柔軟的叉子發展代碼的神聖傳統。

On the other hand, we would prevent several million bitcoins from falling into the hands of multinationals. Knowing that Microsoft recently refused to add bitcoin to its treasury.

另一方面，我們將防止數百萬個比特幣落入跨國公司的手中。知道微軟最近拒絕在其財政部增加比特幣。

Satoshi’s BTC are worth about 100 billion dollars. Those suspected to be lost forever are worth 250 billion. That’s a significant pot that Microsoft could pour into the markets.

Satoshi的BTC價值約1000億美元。那些涉嫌永遠損失的人價值2500億。這是微軟可以倒入市場的重要鍋。

These 350 billion could easily represent more than 2,000 billion when the quantum computer is fully operational. That’s more than Google’s market capitalization.

當量子計算機完全運行時，這3000億億可以很容易地代表超過2000億。這不僅僅是Google的市值。

This leads us to another cornerstone of the Bitcoin matrix: financial incentive. The 21M BTC limit exists because we are financially incentivized not to change it. [It is with this argument that Bitcoin Core refused to filter ordinals, which are a source of income for miners].

這使我們進入了比特幣矩陣的另一個基石：財務激勵。存在2100萬BTC限制，因為我們在經濟上激勵了不改變它。 [正是通過這一論點，比特幣核心拒絕過濾序，這是礦工的收入來源]。

Similarly, we are all incentivized that lost bitcoins, including those of Satoshi, never come back into circulation. Letting Microsoft sell millions of BTC impoverishes all bitcoin holders. Conversely, preventing Microsoft from accessing lost funds would worsen no one’s situation.

同樣，我們都在激勵我們失去的比特幣，包括薩托西的比特幣，再也不會流通了。讓微軟出售數百萬BTC的所有比特幣持有人。相反，防止微軟獲得損失的資金不會加劇任何人的情況。

“No one”, or almost no one. Some absent-minded people will lose out, but whether by a hard fork or by the quantum computer, the result will be the same.

“沒有人”，或者幾乎沒有人。一些缺乏的人會輸掉，但是無論是用硬叉還是通過量子計算機，結果都是相同的。

At the heart of Bitcoin cryptography

比特幣密碼學的核心

Now let’s get into the heart of the cryptographic matter. Bitcoin relies on hashing functions (SHA-256), but also on asymmetric cryptography. In the second case, it is also called “public key” cryptography. It is at the heart of transaction mechanics and would be vulnerable to a quantum computer.

現在，讓我們進入加密問題的核心。比特幣依賴於哈希功能（SHA-256），也依賴於非對稱加密術。在第二種情況下，它也稱為“公共密鑰”密碼學。它是交易機制的核心，很容易受到量子計算機的影響。

The private/public key pairs to which BTCs are linked are constructed using the secp256k1 elliptic curve (ECDSA). It is these

使用SECP256K1橢圓曲線（ECDSA）構建了與BTC鏈接到的私有/公共密鑰對。就是這些