BIP Draft: Quantum-Resistant Transition for Dormant P2PKH Addresses #2147

AlthaafM commented at 1:45 PM on April 21, 2026: none

This PR introduces a draft for a new Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) focused on protecting legacy and dormant addresses from quantum computing attacks.Key features included:

A "Transition Window" for registering Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) public keys.

A reference implementation using Merkle-based roots to secure OTS commitments.

I am seeking community feedback on the mathematical logic and the feasibility of the transition window for early legacy funds.

Initial draft for Quantum-Resistant dormant wallet protection b473c18c38

Add Python reference implementation for Quantum Root security 528ae65834

Add professional README to explain Quantum Security vision da401c31a2

Add functional QuantumWallet prototype with OTS derivation a06afffa01

seedhammer commented at 2:26 PM on April 21, 2026: none

This proposal is incomplete (and reads like slop):

Did you discuss the proposal on the mailing list before publishing it? I've seen multiple threads about the quantum threat.
The "Layer" preamble is missing. Presumably you're aiming for a Consensus change, in which case that should be spelled out and motivated.
The reference implementation is incomplete. Assuming "Layer: Consensus" where is the connection from your code to the particular consensus changes you propose?
Incomplete Abstract, Motivation and Specification. You write about "Transition Window", "flag"'ing, and "Commitment Transaction" but don't specify what they mean in relation to Bitcoin.

murchandamus commented at 2:48 PM on April 21, 2026: member

Thanks for your submission. I’m going to close this PR as a submission here is premature.

As @seedhammer wrote

please discuss any BIP ideas on the mailing list first.
The preamble is incomplete and uses outdated headers. Please see BIP3 for the formatting requirements.
Content-wise your document is little more than an outline. A Specification BIP needs to be comprehensive enough that it can be implemented from the document’s description, but this document barely gives the shape of the idea.

murchandamus closed this on Apr 21, 2026

AlthaafM commented at 3:23 PM on April 21, 2026: none

"Thank you for the candid feedback. I have standardized the BIP draft with the correct Layer: Consensus preamble and expanded the Specification to better define the transition window logic. I am currently preparing to move this discussion to the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list as suggested. I appreciate the high standards of this repository and am committed to refining this proposal to meet them."

murchandamus commented at 4:16 PM on April 21, 2026: member

Hello @AlthaafM, you accidentally replied to my review of #2141 as if I was talking about your submission. Your reply consists of a LLM-generated text which is obvious because it references the ideas from the other PR instead of your own work. Personally, I don’t care particularly what tools contributors use, but I expect contributors to take responsibility for what they post and respect the time of other contributors. That means that contributors must make reasonable effort to ensure that their contributions are constructive and of high-quality. We have zero interest in processing vacuous LLM-generated contributions. Please refrain from posting in this repository if you cannot abide by that.

jonatack commented at 4:37 PM on April 21, 2026: member

@AlthaafM In addition to the excellent comments above, more generally please read and refer to the README and to BIP 3 in depth for the BIPs process.

AlthaafM commented at 4:47 PM on April 21, 2026: none

My apologies to the reviewers. I made a mistake in cross-posting an update meant for #2147 onto this PR, and I understand how that creates unnecessary noise. I value your time and the BIP process. I will step back, thoroughly review BIP 3 as suggested, and ensure my future contributions are properly vetted and correctly placed. Thank you for the correction.

Althaaf Mohamed

On Tue, 21 Apr 2026, 18:38 Jon Atack, @.***> wrote:

jonatack left a comment (bitcoin/bips#2147) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2147?email_source=notifications&email_token=CCJH5MYRFNW3MJDNHCDULUD4W6PX7A5CNFSNUABFM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQXTIMRZGAZDGMJWGA4KM4TFMFZW63VHNVSW45DJN5XKKZLWMVXHJNLQOJPWG33NNVSW45C7N5YGK3S7MNWGSY3L#issuecomment-4290231608

@AlthaafM https://github.com/AlthaafM In addition to the excellent comments above, more generally please read and refer to BIP 3 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md in depth for the BIPs process.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2147?email_source=notifications&email_token=CCJH5MYRFNW3MJDNHCDULUD4W6PX7A5CNFSNUABFM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQXTIMRZGAZDGMJWGA4KM4TFMFZW63VHNVSW45DJN5XKKZLWMVXHJNLQOJPWG33NNVSW45C7N5YGK3S7MNWGSY3L#issuecomment-4290231608, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/CCJH5M7PADJYOGU7GTDCI234W6PX7AVCNFSM6AAAAACYBAB4UOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHM2DEOJQGIZTCNRQHA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

murchandamus commented at 10:15 PM on April 22, 2026: member

I thought that we had come to an understanding yesterday, but then I saw a third slop reply on #2141 after our conversation here. The account AlthaafM was banned from this repository.