Will 2029 be a life and death test for BTC? Yesterday, Google's article caused a strong shock in the BTC community. He shattered people's illusion that the quantum threat is still far away, and brought forward the quantum threat that was originally thought to take 10-20 years to the specific window of 2029 (after BTC halving in 2028). Google pointed out that a quantum computer with strong enough performance can deduce a private key from a public key within 9 minutes. Due to the average block time of BTC being 10 minutes, this means that attackers can directly intercept and forge transactions within the unconfirmed window period of the transaction. In addition, another fatal flaw is the addresses where early public keys were exposed on the chain. According to on chain data, there are currently 3.379 million BTC that have not been moved for 10 years (of which 108w are from Satoshi Nakamoto's address). These coins could theoretically be 'lambs to be slaughtered'. Because most of these are early chips that are "gone" or "gone", they cannot actively complete "anti quantum migration". And once it falls into the hands of the first hacker to crack the system, it means that in the world of BTC, there is a 'madman' who holds a huge illegal wealth of 2.6 times ETF and 4.4 times MSTR. At present, I see that the community's response is mainly divided into two factions: Optimists believe that only one soft fork is needed to introduce anti quantum signature schemes (BIP-360 and P2MR) and complete BTC wallet migration before quantum threats arrive to ensure security. Pessimists believe that even if it is technically feasible, it is difficult to reach a consensus on a decentralized governance model in just 3-4 years, especially on how to handle so many BTC with exposed public keys. If not handled properly, it may trigger another critical hard fork. At that time, the "conservatives" who support protecting private property and the "radicals" who support cybersecurity will once again argue fiercely. Just like the serious disagreement between the Core development team and major miners on block sizes in 17-18, which ultimately led to a hard fork and almost caused Bitcoin to fall apart. Furthermore, even if the community ultimately reaches a consensus, one thing may still be unavoidable. That is because a large number of BTC migrations have been passively generated for security upgrades, and these non economic on chain activities will seriously pollute BTC's on chain data. As a 'global public ledger', it has to sacrifice transparency premium in the face of survival crisis. The transaction model based on "on chain data analysis" that we have established over the past decade may face structural failure. For example, all data based on "holding time" is completely distorted, and the underlying logic of profit/loss valuation models collapses. Future on chain analysis tools may have to divide BTC's history into the 'pre quantum era' and the 'post quantum era'. Perhaps only institutions with top-level data cleaning capabilities (I don't know if Glassnode is capable) can extract the true trading intentions from the massive noise. When trading decisions return to tradition and people start to rely on news, emotions, or technical aspects again, retail investors will lose a transparent and effective technical tool that is the only opportunity to stand on the same starting line as institutions. This is indeed a great regret ..... https://research.google/blog/safeguarding-cryptocurrency-by-disclosing-quantum-vulnerabilities-responsibly/