BitMEX Research has put forward a Bitcoin quantum-risk response plan that would trigger protective action only after a quantum computer is publicly proven to have stolen funds. The proposal centers on a conditional “canary fund,” positioning it as a less restrictive alternative to BIP-361 and its mandatory migration schedule for older wallets.
A bounty address designed to signal a real quantum break
The mechanism relies on what BitMEX calls a “canary watch state.” Under the idea, bitcoin would be placed in a special bounty address whose private key is mathematically unknown while the address itself remains valid. In effect, the network would be offering a public prize to any actor capable of using quantum power to unlock it.
If those coins are ever moved, the event would serve as visible proof that quantum decryption has crossed from theory into practice. At that point, a soft fork would automatically activate to defend the rest of the network. Until then, users holding funds in older wallets would continue transacting as usual. The proposal also introduces a temporary “safety window” for transactions from vulnerable addresses, adding a delay that is meant to make stealth attacks harder to execute.
Supporters of the model argue that it avoids imposing immediate restrictions on legacy holders. Contributors to the bounty fund would also retain control of their assets, since the proposal says they could withdraw their BTC at any time through multisignature procedures.
BitMEX pushes back on BIP-361 deadlines
The proposal arrives as a direct answer to BIP-361, the draft titled “Post Quantum Migration and Legacy Signature Sunset.” That plan sketches a stricter three-stage rollout that would eventually invalidate legacy signature schemes entirely. Under BIP-361, older addresses would stop receiving new deposits after three years, and all unmigrated funds would be frozen after five years.
That timeline has drawn criticism from parts of the Bitcoin community. Some opponents say no previous Bitcoin upgrade has attempted to revoke access to coins simply because their owners left them untouched. Jameson Lopp, a co-author of BIP-361, has acknowledged the discomfort around mandatory deadlines, writing: “I know folks don’t like it. I don’t like it myself. I wrote it because I like the alternative even less.”
34% of supply sits in exposed-key addresses
The debate is being driven by estimates that about 34% of the Bitcoin supply is held in addresses that have already exposed a public key on-chain. Those coins are viewed as theoretically vulnerable in a “Q-Day” scenario, where a quantum processor could derive private keys from public data. The article notes that these holdings include bitcoin attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto.
No one knows when such a breakthrough might happen. Still, the issue is moving closer to practical planning across the tech sector. Google recently published research suggesting a 20-fold reduction in the resources needed to break modern encryption, while setting its own migration target for 2029. BitMEX’s proposal tries to hold the line between that technological pressure and Bitcoin’s emphasis on property rights: wait for proof, then respond.