Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Bitcoin’s quantum risks are a governance, not engineering, problem

Published

on

Bitcoin's quantum risks are a governance, not engineering, problem

Digital asset manager Grayscale backed accelerated efforts to make public blockchains quantum-resistant in a new research note arguing the technical solutions already exist but the harder challenge is getting decentralized communities to agree on implementing them.

“Public blockchains do not have CTOs; they are global communities governed by consensus,” wrote Zach Pandl, Grayscale’s head of research. “The potential threat to digital security from quantum therefore presents both a challenge and an opportunity.”

The note follows a week of intensive industry response to Google Quantum AI’s paper, which found that breaking bitcoin’s elliptic curve cryptography would require fewer than 500,000 physical qubits, roughly a 20-fold reduction from previous estimates, and could be executed in approximately nine minutes once the machine is primed.

CoinDesk’s analysis of the paper found that the attack gives an attacker a roughly 41% chance of stealing funds before a bitcoin transaction confirms.

Pandl highlighted four takeaways from the Google research that Grayscale found persuasive. Progress toward a cryptographically relevant quantum computer may come in “discrete jumps” rather than linearly, making timelines unpredictable.

Advertisement

The technical solutions, specifically post-quantum cryptography, are mature and already securing internet traffic and certain blockchain transactions. Quantum risk varies significantly across blockchains depending on their transaction model, consensus mechanism, and block time.

From a pure engineering standpoint, Pandl argued bitcoin has lower quantum risk than other chains because it uses a UTXO model, proof-of-work consensus, no native smart contracts, and certain address types that are not quantum-vulnerable if not reused after spending.

The harder question is what to do about the roughly 6.9 million BTC sitting in wallets where public keys are already permanently exposed on the blockchain, including an estimated 1 million believed to belong to pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto.

Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao raised the same question last week, saying that if Satoshi’s coins move during a migration “it means he is still around, which is interesting to know,” and that if they don’t move “it might be better to lock or effectively burn those addresses.”

Advertisement

Grayscale frames the options similarly — burn them, do nothing, or deliberately slow their release by limiting the rate of spending from vulnerable addresses — but noted that the bitcoin community has a history of contentious debates over protocol changes, pointing to last year’s dispute around image data stored in blocks.

The contrast with Ethereum is worth noting.

CoinDesk reported last week that Google’s paper identified five separate attack vectors against Ethereum worth over $100 billion in combined exposure, spanning account keys, admin keys on stablecoins, smart contract code, consensus mechanisms, and data availability.

Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake, who co-authored the Google paper, estimated at least a 10% chance of a quantum key recovery by 2032. The foundation has been staking aggressively, putting $93 million of ether into validators in a single day last week, but has not publicly addressed quantum migration timelines.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Covenant AI Leaves Bittensor Amid Decentralization Concerns, TAO Drops 18%

Published

on

Covenant AI Leaves Bittensor Amid Decentralization Concerns, TAO Drops 18%

Bittensor subnet developer Covenant AI said Friday that it is leaving the decentralized artificial intelligence network, accusing Bittensor of operating under a concentrated governance structure that undermines its decentralization claims.

In a Friday post on X, Covenant AI founder Sam Dare said the team could no longer build on or raise for Bittensor because its governance was not meaningfully distributed.

“It is decentralization theatre,” Dare said. “Jacob Steeves maintains effective control over the triumvirate, resists any meaningful transfer of authority, and deploys changes unilaterally whenever he chooses, without process and without consensus.”

The dispute cuts to the core of Bittensor’s decentralization pitch. Covenant AI alleged that founder Jacob Steeves, known as Const, exerts outsized influence over governance and network operations, an accusation Steeves denied.

Advertisement

Bittensor’s governance documents describe a transitional system in which a “Triumvirate” of Opentensor Foundation employees holds root permissions alongside a senate, rather than a fully open governance model.

Source: Covenant AI

Covenant AI claims subnet emissions were suspended, Bittensor founder denies allegations

Covenant AI said Steeves had taken several actions against the project in recent weeks, including suspending emissions to its subnet, restricting moderation powers in community channels and applying “direct economic pressure” through visible token sales during the dispute.

Steeves rejected the allegations, claiming that he cannot suspend subnet emissions and that he does not hold “any privilege beyond what normal TAO holders have.”

In a Friday X response, Steeves said he sold some of his “alpha holdings on his three subnets because they were not running and were on near 100% burn code,” which changed the emissions the same way “all buys and sells on Bittensor do.”

Source: Const

Steeves also denied stripping Covenant AI of its moderation rights, saying he only temporarily removed the team’s ability to delete posts before restoring it. He added that large token sales would have been visible onchain.

“Less than 1% of what i had invested in his teams. Visibility is impossible to avoid in my position. I reserve my right to buy and sell tokens which is what underpins the entire system of dTao,” he added.

Advertisement

Bittensor previously garnered mainstream attention after Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang praised the decentralized training run on Bittensor Subnet 3, calling Covenant’s milestone of pre-training the largest decentralized LLM a “remarkable technical achievement,” during the All-In Podcast on March 19.

Related: Bittensor’s TAO price may plunge 40% within five weeks: Fractal data

TAO’s sales volume skyrockets ahead of Covenant AI’s departure announcement

The governance dispute also weighed on Bittensor’s (TAO) token, which was down around 18% over the previous 24 hours as of Friday morning, according to market data.

TAO/USD, 1-week chart. Source: CoinMarketCap

However, sell volume on TAO rose to its highest level since December 2024, about 24 hours before Covenant AI announced its departure. “If you think that’s a coincidence, you don’t understand the game you’re playing. This was a calculated exit and execution,” wrote crypto analyst Ardi in a Friday X post.

Cointelegraph reached out to Covenant AI and Bittensor for comment but had not received a response by publication.

Advertisement
Source: Ardi

The dispute raises wider concerns for projects striving for decentralization, according to David and Daniil Liberman, co-creators of the decentralized layer-1 blockchain Gonka protocol.

“Decentralized networks that want serious builders have to answer one question: can the infrastructure you build on be used against you? If the answer is yes, the decentralization is cosmetic,” they told Cointelegraph.

Magazine: Michael Heinrich loves AI coins Goat, Turbo & Aethir… but not TAO