# Пов'язані статті щодо Governance

Центр новин HTX надає останні статті та поглиблений аналіз на тему "Governance", що охоплює ринкові тренди, оновлення проєктів, технологічні розробки та регуляторну політику в криптоіндустрії.

The Quantum Computing Threat Approaches, Cryptocurrency May Be Exposed to Risks Before Banks

Quantum computing poses a significant threat to all cryptographic systems, including banks and governments, but decentralized cryptocurrencies with public ledgers like Bitcoin are likely the first practical target. Experts warn that a cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC), capable of running Shor's algorithm to break the elliptic curve cryptography securing most crypto wallets, could emerge around 2029. Recent research shows the required quantum resources for such attacks are shrinking dramatically, potentially enabling key extraction in minutes. The core vulnerability for cryptocurrencies is not the cryptography itself—post-quantum standards are being developed—but the slow, decentralized governance required to implement upgrades. Unlike centralized banks that can swiftly transition, Bitcoin needs near-unanimous consensus among its global network, a historically difficult process as seen in past upgrades. Estimates suggest migrating all vulnerable Bitcoin funds could take at least 76 days of dedicated network time, and it must be completed before a CRQC exists to prevent "now-or-never" attacks on exposed keys. The threat is not binary; it begins when a quantum computer can decrypt data before it loses value, not necessarily in real-time. A significant portion of Bitcoin (estimated at millions of coins) already has public keys permanently exposed on-chain, making them vulnerable to eventual "static attacks." While technical solutions exist, the race is against time for decentralized networks to coordinate a defensive transition, serving as an early warning for the broader financial system.

marsbit17 год тому

The Quantum Computing Threat Approaches, Cryptocurrency May Be Exposed to Risks Before Banks

marsbit17 год тому

A Serious Threat is Looming for Bitcoin (BTC) and Cryptocurrencies: They Could Be the First Target!

The rapid advancement of quantum computing poses a serious threat not only to cryptocurrencies but to the entire encryption system, including banking. However, experts warn that the cryptocurrency market might be the first sector to suffer from this transformation. As predictions of a 'Q-Day' approach, the slow governance processes of cryptocurrencies, rather than their cryptography, could become the biggest obstacle to defending against quantum attacks. Quantum Xchange CEO Eddy Zervigon has compared cryptocurrencies to "canaries in the coal mine," stating that the first successful quantum-powered cyberattack is likely to target decentralized blockchain networks. While a cryptographically relevant quantum computer capable of breaking the elliptic curve cryptography underlying Bitcoin's signatures and banking security does not yet exist, work by giants like Microsoft, IBM, and Google suggests the threat is nearer than previously thought. The industry consensus estimates such a computer could emerge around 2029. Supporting this view, recent Google research indicates the number of physical qubits needed to break the cryptographic systems protecting Bitcoin and Ethereum has decreased by about 20 times compared to prior estimates, highlighting the accelerated danger. Zervigon concludes that Bitcoin's greatest risk lies not in its current cryptographic system, but in the slow pace of implementing major network upgrades.

cryptonews.ruВчора 14:06

A Serious Threat is Looming for Bitcoin (BTC) and Cryptocurrencies: They Could Be the First Target!

cryptonews.ruВчора 14:06

An Undercurrent of Bitcoin Civil War: BIP-110 Raises Fork Concerns

**A Summary of the Bitcoin Governance Crisis: The BIP-110 Showdown and Forking Risks** Bitcoin is facing internal division alongside a market downturn. The core of the conflict is BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Carriage Soft Fork" proposal introduced in December 2025. It aims to restrict non-financial data (like inscriptions) in future transactions, citing concerns over node costs and Bitcoin's original purpose. The controversy lies in its activation mechanism. BIP-110 requires 55% miner support within a difficulty period. However, its voting signal has remained below 1% since monitoring began. If this threshold isn't met by the August 7, 2026 deadline (block height 961,632), compatible nodes (primarily running Bitcoin Knots) are programmed to *enforce* the new rules, rejecting non-compliant blocks. Critics warn this minority-enforced activation could split the chain. Major figures like Michael Saylor, Adam Back, and Jameson Lopp strongly oppose BIP-110. Saylor argues it sets a dangerous precedent for defining "valid" transactions and could stifle future innovations. Opponents view the enforcement strategy as a risky governance overreach, contrasting it with past upgrades that achieved over 90% consensus. BIP-110 was partly a reaction to Bitcoin Core's v30 update in October 2025, which significantly increased the default data relay limit. Core developers called this a policy change, not a consensus rule, but it prompted the creation of the Bitcoin Knots branch and, subsequently, BIP-110. Compounding the pressure, Paul Sztorc plans a separate hard fork around the same time to launch a new chain (eCash) featuring his Drivechain scaling proposal. While independent, these dual forking events create operational and market uncertainty. The market, already in a corrective phase, must now price in this governance tail risk. Analysts predict the original chain, backed by the vast majority of miners and exchanges, would likely retain primary value and liquidity if a split occurs. However, the process would be disruptive, causing short-term chaos with replay attacks, exchange confusion, and widened spreads. August 2026 presents a critical test of Bitcoin's ability to resolve deep governance disputes without fracturing.

Foresight NewsВчора 13:10

An Undercurrent of Bitcoin Civil War: BIP-110 Raises Fork Concerns

Foresight NewsВчора 13:10

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

Michael Saylor presents 110 arguments against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, a soft fork aimed at restricting certain non-monetary data storage uses (like inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain. He acknowledges the proponents' valid concerns—such as node costs, fee pressure, and preserving Bitcoin's monetary focus—but fundamentally disagrees with the proposed solution. Saylor argues that BIP 110 represents a dangerous precedent of using consensus rules to enforce value judgments on transaction validity, moving away from Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation. His key objections are organized into eleven categories: 1) It violates neutrality and hard consensus by banning currently valid transactions. 2) It fails to meet the high burden of proof required for a consensus change, lacking concrete data on the alleged crisis. 3) Its seven bundled technical restrictions are overly broad, targeting generic script functionalities and blocking future upgrade paths. 4) It sacrifices compatibility and future optionality by closing off designed upgrade hooks. 5) Its temporary rules add significant complexity (grandfathering, expiry states) without sufficient justification. 6) The economic and security impacts, particularly on miner revenue and fee markets, are uncertain and unmodeled. 7) Superior, market-based tools (fee markets, relay/mining policies) already exist to manage blockchain load. 8) It stifles innovation by creating a chilling effect for developers. 9) Its modified activation mechanism (55% threshold, forced signaling) is aggressive and risks network splits. 10) The precedent it sets—using consensus to suppress disliked but legal uses—is more dangerous than the problem it aims to solve. 11) A better path exists: improving measurements, refining resource-based policies, and allowing market forces to work. Saylor concludes that Bitcoin's strength lies in its neutral rules, open markets, and hard consensus. Changing these foundational elements to target specific use cases is an unnecessary and risky "iatrogenic" intervention. He advocates for guarding Bitcoin's neutrality rather than acting as its redeemer.

marsbit07/22 00:06

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit07/22 00:06

活动图片