BIP Draft: Quantum-Resistant Transition for Dormant P2PKH Addresses

[AlthaafM]

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.

[seedhammer]

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]

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• The preamble is incomplete and uses outdated headers.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]

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]

@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.

[murchandamus]

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.