News linked to both this project and an event.
According to Cointelegraph, Ethereum researcher Justin Drake warned that the rapid advancement of AI could accelerate mathematical attacks against the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), potentially breaking existing cryptographic systems within months under the worst-case scenario, and called on the industry to initiate "bunker mode"—transferring assets to new addresses with previously unexposed public keys to mitigate risk. Several industry insiders, however, expressed reservations. Coinbase Chief Cryptographer Yehuda Lindell stated there is currently "no evidence" that the mathematical assumptions underpinning ECDSA have been weakened; Trezor Bitcoin analyst Lucien Bourdon similarly noted that migrating assets could backfire and inadvertently create opportunities for scams. MetaMask founder Taylor Monahan was even more direct, asserting that if elliptic curve cryptography were truly compromised, "the entire world would go to zero," rendering bunker mode ineffective. Meanwhile, Ethereum has laid out a post-quantum roadmap based on hash-based signatures and ZK proofs, while public blockchains such as Solana and NEAR are also exploring their own quantum-safe alternatives, though concrete deployment timelines remain unset.
Odaily News: Dragonfly Managing Partner Haseeb Qureshi stated that the "bunker mode" proposed by Ethereum researcher Justin Drake to address the risk of AI cracking cryptographic signatures amounts to "cryptographic doomerism," and argued that migrating tokens to new addresses is not a real solution.Qureshi said that "bunker mode" can only protect assets that users have not yet transferred out of new addresses. If tokens in other addresses are attacked and heavily sold off, those assets could still lose value. He suggested that blockchain networks adopt a "Cryptographic Recovery Mode," using hash-based backup signature schemes that allow users to bind recovery mechanisms in advance, so that validators can assist in recovering assets after cryptographic signatures are cracked.Previously, Ethereum researcher Justin Drake warned that with the rapid improvement of AI mathematical capabilities, the ECDSA signature algorithm protecting crypto wallets could face the risk of being cracked within "months rather than years," and advised users to gradually migrate funds to new wallets that have not exposed public keys. Glassnode data shows that approximately 6.26 million BTC are currently held in addresses with potential risk. (Cointelegraph)
A cryptography expert advisory committee led by Coinbase released a report stating that Bitcoin should immediately begin preparing for potential quantum computing attacks. However, the committee did not take a clear stance on whether to freeze the millions of bitcoins potentially vulnerable to quantum-computing theft in the future. The committee includes several leading experts, such as Justin Drake, a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation. They argue that the current debate is not about *how* to introduce quantum-resistant signature schemes, but rather *how to handle* bitcoins held in long-dormant addresses that fail to migrate. One camp advocates setting a final deadline after which Bitcoin’s existing ECDSA and Schnorr signature schemes would no longer be supported, and unmigrated funds would be frozen—thereby preventing future quantum attackers from seizing large amounts of BTC and destabilizing markets. The other camp contends that freezing funds would effectively amount to asset confiscation, violating Bitcoin’s core principles of immutability and full user control over assets—and could set a precedent for future regulatory-driven freezes. The Coinbase advisory committee notes that these approaches are not mutually exclusive and could be combined. Yet it declines to state a position on whether “legacy BTC” should be frozen, asserting that the ultimate decision rests with Bitcoin’s community governance. It emphasizes two key points: first, technical development of quantum-resistant signature migration must begin immediately—not wait for governance debates to conclude; second, users must receive clear, timely risk communication to prevent prolonged uncertainty from harming the Bitcoin ecosystem.