Written by: Coach Liu

Upon waking up, BTC slightly retraced to around 66k.

Recently, a white paper led by Google Quantum AI and co-released with several institutions, titled "Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities," has sparked widespread discussion in the crypto community. The paper, with detailed technical estimates and seemingly rigorous academic posture, claims that the threat of quantum computers to cryptocurrencies is imminent and proposes a series of "countermeasures" based on this premise.

However, upon closer reading, the core concern of this paper is not the technology itself, but rather the erosion of the decentralized foundation of cryptocurrency under the guise of "quantum threat." This article will systematically refute this paper and the panic it has incited from the perspective of educational chains.

1. Value Presupposition Behind Technical Terminology

The most alarming aspect of this paper lies in the underlying value presuppositions veiled within its technical discussions. The authors construct an authority of "non-experts have no right to speak" by piling up terms like zero-knowledge proofs, logical qubits, and surface codes in an astonishing length. However, beneath the technical facade, the paper repeatedly conveys a core viewpoint: decentralized governance is inefficient, and centralized intervention is the solution.

This presupposition is reflected in the interpretation of two crucial cases.

2. The DAO: "Stain" or "Advantage"?

The paper praises the Ethereum Foundation's approach of rolling back transactions via hard fork during the 2016 DAO event as a "manifestation of leadership," arguing that Ethereum can "more easily transition to post-quantum cryptography" than Bitcoin. This judgment exposes the authors' ignorance of cryptocurrency history—or worse, a deliberate distortion of it.

The DAO fork is the most controversial event in Ethereum's history. It proved one thing: when on-chain assets are sufficiently large and stakeholders are powerful enough, "code is law" can be brutally overturned by "social consensus is law." That night, the Ethereum community split into two chains, ETH and ETC, permanently shaking the foundation of decentralized trust. This is not an "advantage," but a painful lesson in decentralized governance.

Glorifying a principle-violating emergency operation as "leadership" fundamentally promotes a dangerous creed: in face of a crisis, decentralized principles can be sacrificed, and strong centralized decision-making is the guarantee. If this logic is accepted, the foundation of cryptocurrency will cease to exist.

3. "Digital Salvage": The Sweetening of Government Intervention

The most disturbing part of the paper is its policy recommendations regarding "dormant assets." The authors suggest that the government should use a "digital salvage" framework, or employ state power, utilizing quantum computers to recover assets in old addresses. This plan is packaged as a goodwill gesture to "prevent assets from falling into the hands of malicious actors."

But let’s clarify the logic behind this:

First, who has the authority to determine what is "dormant"? How long must an address remain inactive to be deemed "dormant"? A year? Five years? Ten years? Who has the power to make this determination? Miners? Developers? Or the "government" hinted at by the authors? Once this door is opened, today it can determine "dormant," and tomorrow it can determine "illegal."

Second, who benefits from the "salvage"? The paper implies that assets should "be included in the formal tax system," which means the government will directly intervene in the distribution of wealth in cryptocurrency. One of Satoshi Nakamoto's original intentions in designing Bitcoin was to combat the misuse of sovereign currency and the censorship of financial systems. Now, the authors of this paper propose that the government "salvage" Satoshi's coins, which is a profound irony against the spirit of Bitcoin.

Third, what lies behind the guise of "preventing malicious actions"? If the government has the authority to confiscate assets "to prevent quantum attacks," does it also have the right to freeze all addresses "to prevent money laundering"? To forcibly deduct balances "to collect taxes"? Quantum computers are merely an excuse; centralized control is the goal.

4. Where Are Decentralized Solutions Placed?

In discussing Bitcoin's response to dormant assets, the paper does mention options the community is exploring— "Do Nothing, Burn, Hourglass"—and notes that support for these solutions is roughly equal within the community. The paper also refers to specific technical efforts like BIP-360 (P2MR) proposal and Project 11’s Risq List.

However, the issue lies in how the paper handles these decentralized solutions: they are briefly mentioned and quickly passed over, while the government-led "digital salvage" plan is elaborated in detail, from legal basis to operational processes, from the "Uniform Abandoned Property Act" to multi-national coordination prisoner dilemma analysis, occupying several pages.

This stark contrast in the distribution of length and depth of discussion is a value judgment in itself. It conveys a subtext to readers: community-generated technical solutions are "insufficient," and external authorities need to intervene to "truly resolve the problem." Decentralized solutions serve more as a supplement in the paper, used to highlight the "necessity" of government intervention.

Community members do not need Google engineers to tell them "your consensus mechanism is too slow," nor do they need the government to "do the right thing" for them. The ongoing debate in the Bitcoin community about P2PK address disposal—despite being slow, challenging, and full of divergence—is precisely the authentic state of decentralized governance. In the crypto world, "slow" is not a defect but the price of security. A system capable of "quick decision-making" is often also a system that can be easily captured.

5. The Real Purpose of the "Panic Narrative"

The paper's choice to be published in March 2026 is intriguing. The authors, under the guise of "responsible disclosure," conceal attack details using zero-knowledge proofs, yet embellish the urgency of the threat through public channels. This behavior constitutes a form of FUD—fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

We must ask: why would a truly "responsible" research team create panic in the face of a vulnerability that cannot be immediately fixed? In the traditional software security field, responsible disclosure means providing a window for repair. Here, the so-called "repair"—migration to post-quantum cryptography—takes years. Spreading panic in advance will only backfire, causing market chaos and enabling real malicious actors to profit.

The true purpose of this paper may not be to help the community respond to threats but to pave the way for the centralized solutions preferred by the authors. By fabricating the narrative that "quantum computers are coming, and decentralized communities cannot cope," they attempt to make the crypto world accept a dangerous presupposition: in the face of a "survival crisis," decentralized principles can be sacrificed.

6. Real Countermeasures

The threat of quantum computers to elliptic curve cryptography is real; that is beyond doubt. But the existence of the threat does not mean we should abandon our principles.

The real countermeasures lie precisely in adhering to decentralization:

First, uphold community autonomy. The ongoing discussions in the Bitcoin community regarding post-quantum migration, though slow, are the only correct path. Any "solution" that bypasses community consensus is simply another form of centralized control. The BIP-360 (P2MR) proposal and the ongoing debate about P2PK address disposal are the directions worth focusing on.

Second, embrace technological diversity. The ongoing post-quantum experiments on chains such as Algorand, Solana, and XRP ledger, as well as explorations of native post-quantum chains like QRL and Abelian, all demonstrate the self-evolution of the decentralized ecosystem. We do not need Google engineers to tell us "what to do."

Third, be aware of the centralized plots behind "solutions." When someone tells you "the crisis is imminent, only we can solve it," please remain vigilant. In the crypto world, any "solution" that asks you to relinquish control may be more dangerous than the problem it claims to address. The government intervention plans that occupy a large portion of the paper are exactly the ones that deserve the most caution.

Fourth, respect the rights of "dormancy." Regarding the disposal of P2PK addresses, if the community ultimately decides to let them remain dormant forever, that is also a legitimate result of decentralized autonomy. Not all assets must be "rescued," not all value must be "released." Sometimes, upholding principles is more important than preserving assets.

Conclusion

The quantum threat is real, but panic is controllable. This white paper from Google Quantum AI superficially discusses technology but actually outputs a value system: in the face of a crisis, decentralized principles can be sacrificed, and centralized intervention is the way forward.

We need not deny the paper's contributions on a technical level—quantum resource estimation, attack pattern classification, etc., are indeed valuable. But we must have the ability to distinguish between technical discussion and value imposition. When a technical paper spends extensive length discussing how the government can "salvage" crypto assets while brushing over the community's organic technical solutions, its bias is transparent.

Indeed, quantum computers are advancing, and elliptic curve cryptography needs to be replaced, but this does not mean we should abandon the core principles of decentralization, nor does it mean we should return the fate of the crypto world to the government or technocrats.

The value of cryptocurrency lies not only in its technological advancement but also in the decentralized ideals it embodies. If we abandon our principles in order to protect assets, then what remains will merely be another form of centralized asset—and such assets are exactly what cryptocurrencies initially aimed to replace.

Let us resolve decentralized issues in a decentralized manner. That is the right path.

References

- Safeguarding cryptocurrency by disclosing quantum vulnerabilities responsibly, Google Quantum AI, March 30, 2026.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。