{"id":2426,"date":"2026-04-15T23:06:56","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T23:06:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/?p=2426"},"modified":"2026-04-15T23:06:56","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T23:06:56","slug":"bitcoin-developers-propose-bip-361-to-protect-legacy-addresses-from-quantum-risk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/2026\/04\/15\/bitcoin-developers-propose-bip-361-to-protect-legacy-addresses-from-quantum-risk\/","title":{"rendered":"Bitcoin Developers Propose BIP 361 to Protect Legacy Addresses From Quantum Risk"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A group led by Jameson Lopp alongside five other contributors has introduced a proposal aimed at freezing Bitcoin addresses that could be vulnerable to future quantum computing attacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plan reflects rising concern within the Bitcoin community that advances in quantum technology may eventually undermine the cryptographic security that protects the network today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gradual Shift Toward Safer Wallet Standards<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a GitHub post published on Tuesday, the developers outlined a three stage transition plan under Proposal BIP 361 to phase out older wallet formats considered less secure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposal builds on earlier work from February under BIP 360, which suggested a soft fork introducing a new output type called Pay to Merkle Root. This design would remove exposure points in Bitcoin addresses that currently reveal public keys and increase vulnerability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the first stage of the new plan, users would no longer be able to send Bitcoin to older address formats considered at risk from quantum attacks. The goal is to encourage migration toward updated wallet systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second stage, expected two years later, would impose a stricter rule. Wallets still using outdated signature methods would lose the ability to send Bitcoin entirely, effectively locking inactive users out of spending until they upgrade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A possible third stage is also being discussed. It would allow users to recover funds after missing earlier deadlines, although this remains under review and requires broader agreement from the Bitcoin community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications for the Bitcoin Network<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research estimates suggest that quantum computers could pose a real threat to Bitcoin\u2019s cryptography between 2027 and 2030. Analysts also believe that around 34 percent of all Bitcoin supply may already be exposed to this risk due to older address types.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposal warns that a quantum attack might not be immediately detectable, allowing attackers to quietly exploit vulnerable addresses. Because of this, developers argue that waiting until the threat becomes active would be too dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They also highlight potential benefits of a coordinated upgrade. A network wide transition could strengthen long term security, reduce uncertainty, and improve resilience against future attacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another key advantage is the introduction of a clear timeline that would help wallets, exchanges, and institutions prepare in advance rather than reacting during a crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some organizations are already exploring quantum resistant solutions. For example, Blockstream research division recently reported successful transactions on a Bitcoin sidechain using post quantum cryptography.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Developers also note that if a large portion of Bitcoin supply becomes permanently inaccessible, overall scarcity could increase. At the same time, they believe such a shift could encourage more careful management of digital assets by users.#crypto#cryptonews https:\/\/coinsignals.net<\/a> https:\/\/t.me\/coinsignalpublic<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A group led by Jameson Lopp alongside five other contributors has introduced a proposal aimed at freezing Bitcoin addresses that could be vulnerable to future quantum...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2426","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2426","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2426"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2426\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2428,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2426\/revisions\/2428"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2426"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2426"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}