What if someone hacked your Bitcoin wallet and ended up paying you for the theft? That is the idea behind a proposal from Bitcoin Core developer Cory Fields.
As Bitcoin prepares for Q-Day, when powerful quantum computers could break its current cryptography, Fields wants to make stealing vulnerable coins a costly gamble.
On November 4, he introduced “quantum landmines” to the Bitcoin Development Mailing List. The idea is surprisingly simple: let Bitcoin owners secretly prepare traps that punish future hackers.
How Could a Bitcoin Hacker Lose Their Own Money?
Imagine you own 1 BTC in an old wallet vulnerable to quantum attacks.
Before Q-Day, you create a hidden proof of ownership inside a tiny quantum-safe Bitcoin output. Nobody else can see that proof.
- Hackers must give Bitcoin to steal Bitcoin: Under the proposed rules, once quantum attacks become possible, anyone attempting to move that vulnerable 1 BTC must provide another 1 BTC as collateral. Both amounts then face a waiting period, potentially 30 days.
- Hackers can steal, but you will get it back: If a quantum hacker steals your Bitcoin, you can reveal your secret proof during that window, recover your BTC and seize the hacker’s deposit.
The hacker loses money. You could walk away with twice your original holdings.
Fields argues that attackers would become “wary of stealing coins as they may be secretly guarded by mines.”
But There’s a Major Problem for Bitcoin Holders
The blockchain cannot distinguish a hacker from a legitimate owner. So everyone moving vulnerable Bitcoin would face the same collateral requirement.
Someone holding 10 BTC in an old wallet might need another 10 BTC in quantum-safe funds just to move their savings.
There is another complication – dormant Bitcoin, including Satoshi-era holdings.
If their private keys are lost, nobody can prepare a landmine. Fields proposes alternative auction mechanisms where bidders could challenge hackers and claim their deposits. One version would permanently destroy the vulnerable coins.
That raises difficult questions about ownership and Bitcoin’s supply.
For now, the debate exposes a difficult trade-off: protecting Bitcoin from future hackers could make moving older coins far more expensive for legitimate owners.
