Cardano (ADA) founder Charles Hoskinson argues that BIP-361’s zero-knowledge saving method cannot save about 1.7 million Bitcoin (BTC) locked in addresses before 2013. This includes about 1.1 million Bitcoins created by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Casa co-founder Jameson Lopp and five co-authors proposed the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP-361). It wants to replace the ECDSA/Schnorr signature, allowing those addresses to become unused.
Hoskinson Flags Fatal Gap in Bitcoin’s Quantum Plan
Statistics show that at 34% of Bitcoin occurs in potential addresses on the future risks of overcrowding, prompting a renewed focus on mitigation efforts. The The proposal of BIP-361 aims to address this threat.
The Processing eliminates inheritance Bitcoin signals in three stages. Part A restricts new delivery to vulnerable addresses. In Phase B, nodes can reject all transactions that rely on ECDSA and Schnorr signals.
Section C, pending further investigation, would allow owners to return frozen coins. They will testify without knowing that they have the word BIP-39 seed. However, concerns remain about the potential for such a recovery. In a recent video, Hoskinson said that,
“1.7 million silver coins can’t do that. It can’t be done. 1.1 million of them belong to Satoshi.”
Subscribe to our YouTube channel a way to watch leaders and journalists deliver professional information
He explained that this money came from from the basic architecture of Bitcoin, which started as early as today as the BIP-39 seed statement and the necessary proof generation.
As a result, they fall outside of the basic concepts of zero-knowledge to support recovery, reducing the effectiveness of concepts like BIP-361 for older people.
“If you build the ZK system based on word proof, your 39th key, let me say that I have these things, you can find another 8 million Bitcoins, but 1.7 million are not under this scheme. All the 2013 Bitcoins are already,” he added.
The restrictions are accepted only in BIP-361, which admits that “it is not possible to create proof of ownership of the HD wallet of UTXOs that were created before BIP-32.”
“Phase C is also compatible with an ‘Hourglass’ BIP model using more P2PK funds, provided that the BIP is in effect by the time Phase C begins,” the document reads.
Hoskinson also argues against the soft fork category. He says the process will require a hard fork. The text of BIP-361 acknowledges that the relevant regulations may need to be released.
“After Part B, both senders and receivers will need higher wallets. Part C, if opened in conjunction with Part B, can be soft, otherwise it may be necessary to loosen the corresponding rules (hard fork) to allow the money at risk to be returned,” the authors wrote.
In particular, Lopp admitted his displeasure with the idea, saying that he doesn’t like it himself but considers the alternative unacceptable.
Follow us on X to hear the latest news as it happens
A note Why BIP-361 Can’t Save Satoshi of Bitcoin, According to Charles Hoskinson appeared for the first time BeInCrypto.
