The Bitcoin community remains divided on the ethical considerations of recovering lost BTC through quantum computing. Some argue that allowing quantum-enabled recovery could negate the fundamentals of Bitcoin, whereas others believe it is an inevitable evolution. Casa chief security officer Jameson Lopp is a fierce critic of quantum recovery. In a post on March 16, he commented that recovery of lost coins through quantum computers would be a violation of Bitcoin’s censorship resistance, transaction immutability, and conservatism principles. Lopp: Quantum Recovery is Wealth Redistribution Lopp thinks that BTC recovery through quantum would lead to an unequal redistribution of wealth. He explained: “Allowing quantum recovery of bitcoin is wealth redistribution. What we would be allowing is that bitcoin be redistributed from individuals who are ignorant of quantum computers to individuals who have won the technological race to get quantum computers.” He continued to warn that this would be harmful to the security and trust of the Bitcoin network without any corresponding advantages. The Quantum Threat to Bitcoin The subject of quantum computing’s impact on Bitcoin has been building steam over the last couple of years. While some believe that quantum computers capable of breaking encryption are decades away, others are warning that the danger could become reality sooner than that. The Great Quantum Scare of 2024 In October 2024, researchers at Shanghai University stated that they had broken encryption levels used in banking and military operations with a quantum computer. The assertions were debunked by cybersecurity YouTuber “Mental Outlaw,” who clarified that the researchers had only managed to factorize a 22-bit key—far less than the 2048-bit keys used in modern encryption. Since quantum computing is still developing, Bitcoin needs to be quantum-attack resistant, say specialists like Lopp. Instead of allowing coin recovery through the utilization of quantum, burning compromised BTC could be the best means to secure the protocol’s integrity.
