More
    Home Blog Page 2

    BTQ’s Bitcoin Quantum Testnet and “Old BTC” Risk, Explained

    f0f7y
    -
    0
    BTQ’s Bitcoin Quantum Testnet and “Old BTC” Risk, Explained

    Key takeaways

    • Bitcoin’s quantum risk centers on exposed public keys and signature security.

    • BTQ’s testnet explores post-quantum signatures in a Bitcoin-like environment.

    • Post-quantum signatures significantly increase transaction size and block space demands.

    • “Old BTC risk” is concentrated in legacy output types and address reuse patterns.

    BTQ Technologies said it had launched a Bitcoin Quantum testnet on Jan. 12, 2026, a Bitcoin-like network designed to trial post-quantum signatures without touching Bitcoin mainnet governance.

    The idea is that BTQ would replace Bitcoin’s current signature scheme with ML-DSA, the module-lattice signature standard formalized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 204, for post-quantum security assumptions.

    It is worth remembering that in most Bitcoin quantum-threat models, the key precondition is public-key exposure. If a public key is already visible onchain, a sufficiently capable future quantum computer could, in theory, attempt to recover the corresponding private key offline.

    Did you know? BTQ Technologies is a research-focused firm working on post-quantum cryptography and blockchain security. Its Bitcoin Quantum testnet is designed to study how quantum-resistant signatures behave in a Bitcoin-like system.

    What quantum changes?

    Most Bitcoin quantum-risk discussions focus on digital signatures, not on Bitcoin’s coin supply or the idea that a quantum computer could magically guess random wallets.

    The specific concern is that a cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC) could run Shor’s algorithm to solve the discrete logarithm problem efficiently enough to derive a private key from a known public key, undermining both the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) and Schnorr-based signing.

    Chaincode Labs frames this as the dominant quantum threat model for Bitcoin because it could enable unauthorized spending by producing valid signatures.

    The risk can be separated into long-range exposure, where public keys are already visible onchain for some older script types or due to reuse, and short-range exposure, where public keys are revealed when a transaction is broadcast and awaits confirmation, creating a narrow time window.

    Of course, no quantum computer today poses an immediate risk to Bitcoin, and mining-related impacts should be treated as a separate and more constrained discussion compared with signature breakage.

    Did you know? Shor’s algorithm already exists as mathematics, but it requires a large, fault-tolerant quantum computer to run. If such machines are built, they could be used to derive private keys from exposed public keys.

    What BTQ built and why it’s interesting

    BTQ’s Bitcoin Quantum testnet is essentially a Bitcoin Core-based fork that swaps out one of Bitcoin’s most important primitives, signatures.

    In its announcement, BTQ said the testnet replaces ECDSA with ML-DSA, the module-lattice signature scheme standardized by the NIST as FIPS 204 for post-quantum digital signatures.

    This change forces a set of engineering trade-offs. ML-DSA signatures are roughly 38-72 times larger than ECDSA, so the testnet raises the block size limit to 64 mebibytes (MiB) to make room for the additional transaction data.

    The company also treats the network as a full lifecycle proving ground, supporting wallet creation, transaction signing and verification, and mining, along with basic infrastructure such as a block explorer and mining pool.

    In short, the testnet’s practical value is that it turns post-quantum Bitcoin into a performance and coordination experiment.

    Where old BTC risk concentrates

    When analysts talk about “old BTC risk” in a post-quantum context, they are usually referring to public keys that are already exposed onchain.

    A future CRQC capable of running Shor’s algorithm could, in theory, use those public keys to derive the corresponding private keys and then produce valid spends.

    There are three output types immediately vulnerable to long-range attacks, specifically because they place elliptic-curve public keys directly in the locking script (ScriptPubKey): Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK), Pay-to-Multi-Signature (P2MS) and Pay-to-Taproot (P2TR).

    The distribution is uneven:

    • P2PK is a tiny share of today’s unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs), around 0.025%, but it locks a disproportionate share of BTC value, about 8.68% or 1,720,747 Bitcoin (BTC), mostly dormant Satoshi-era coins.

    • P2MS accounts for about 1.037% of UTXOs, but reports estimate that it secures only around 57 BTC.

    • P2TR is common by count, around 32.5% of UTXOs, yet small by value in the same snapshot, about 0.74% or 146,715 BTC. Its exposure is tied to Taproot’s key-path design, where a tweaked public key is visible onchain.

    Address reuse can also turn what would otherwise be “spend-time” exposure into long-range exposure because once a public key appears onchain, it remains visible.

    BTQ’s own messaging uses this exposed-key framing to argue that the potentially affected pool is large. It cites 6.26 million BTC as exposed, which is part of why the company says testing post-quantum signatures in a Bitcoin-like environment is worth doing now.

    What’s next for Bitcoin?

    In the near term, the most concrete work is observability and preparedness.

    As explored, the signature threat model is driven by public-key exposure. This is why discussions often center on how Bitcoin’s existing wallet and scripting practices either reveal public keys early, as with some legacy script types, or reduce exposure by default, as with common wallet behavior that avoids reuse.

    “Old BTC risk” is therefore largely a property of historical output types and reuse patterns and not something that suddenly applies evenly to every coin.

    The second, more practical constraint is capacity. Even if a post-quantum migration were socially agreed upon, it would still be a blockspace and coordination problem.

    River’s explainer summarizes academic estimates showing how sensitive timelines are to assumptions. A theoretical scenario in which all transactions are migrations can compress timelines dramatically, while more realistic blockspace allocation stretches a transition into years, even before accounting for governance and adoption.

    BTQ’s testnet fits into that bucket. It lets engineers observe the operational costs of post-quantum signatures, including larger data sizes and different limits, in a Bitcoin-like setting, without claiming that Bitcoin is imminently breakable.

    Did you know? The biggest factor holding quantum computers back is noise, or errors. Today’s qubits make mistakes frequently, so fault-tolerant error correction is required. This means using many physical qubits to produce a small number of reliable “logical” qubits before running the long computations needed to break real-world cryptography.

    What Bitcoin-level mitigation might look like

    At the protocol level, quantum preparedness is often discussed as a sequenced path.

    Post-quantum signature schemes tend to be much larger than elliptic-curve signatures, which have knock-on effects for transaction size, bandwidth and verification costs; the same kinds of trade-offs BTQ is surfacing by experimenting with ML-DSA.

    That is why some Bitcoin proposals focus first on reducing the most structural exposure within existing script designs, without committing the network to a specific post-quantum signature algorithm immediately.

    A recent example is Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 360, which proposes a new output type called Pay-to-Tapscript-Hash (P2TSH). P2TSH is nearly identical to Taproot but removes the key-path spend, the path that relies on elliptic-curve signatures, leaving a tapscript-native route that can be used in ways intended to avoid that key-path dependency.

    Related ideas have circulated on the Bitcoin developer mailing list under the broader “hash-only” or “script-spend” Taproot family, often discussed as Pay-to-Quantum-Resistant-Hash (P2QRH)-style constructions. These proposals again aim to reuse Taproot’s structure while skipping the quantum-vulnerable key spend.

    Importantly, none of this is settled. The main point is that Bitcoin’s likely response, if it moves, is debated as an incremental coordination problem that balances conservatism, compatibility and the cost of changing the transaction format.

    The BTQ testnet is quite revealing

    BTQ’s Bitcoin Quantum testnet does not settle the quantum debate, but it does make two points harder to ignore.

    First, most credible threat models focus on where public keys are already exposed, which is why “old coin” patterns keep appearing in analyses.

    Second, post-quantum Bitcoin is an engineering and coordination problem. BTQ Technologies’ own design choices, such as moving to ML-DSA and lifting block limits to accommodate much larger signatures, illustrate those trade-offs.

    Ultimately, the testnet is a sandbox for measuring costs and constraints and should not be seen as proof that Bitcoin is imminently breakable.

    Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.

    Source link

    How Bitcoin Mining Waste Heat Is Being Used to Warm Canadian Greenhouses

    f0f7y
    -
    0
    How Bitcoin Mining Waste Heat Is Being Used to Warm Canadian Greenhouses

    Key takeaways

    • Bitcoin mining produces large amounts of heat that are typically treated as waste. In cold regions, this thermal output is now being tested as a useful resource.

    • A pilot project in Manitoba is integrating Bitcoin mining with greenhouse farming, reusing server heat as a supplemental source of agricultural heating.

    • Liquid-cooled mining systems are generally associated with higher and more stable heat capture, making recovered thermal energy suitable for industrial heating applications.

    • Reusing mining heat may lower operating costs for both miners and greenhouse operators by improving energy efficiency and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

    Bitcoin (BTC) mining faces criticism for consuming large amounts of electricity and generating significant heat that is typically treated as waste and must be cooled or removed. In colder regions, that heat is now being tested as a potentially useful byproduct.

    In the province of Manitoba, Canada, a pilot project is examining whether heat produced by Bitcoin mining can be reused to support greenhouse farming. Integrating Bitcoin mining with greenhouse agriculture offers a practical way to repurpose heat generated during the mining process.

    This guide discusses the Manitoba pilot project and explores how thermal waste from digital infrastructure can be reused. It also outlines how improving thermal efficiency may help reduce Bitcoin mining operating costs while discussing emerging mining-integrated heating models and their limitations.

    Repurposing thermal waste from digital infrastructure

    Bitcoin mining relies on specialized equipment that performs a large volume of calculations to secure the network and confirm transactions. This continuous processing generates substantial heat, similar to data centers but often at a higher power density.

    Traditionally, miners use fans or cooling systems to remove this heat. In colder climates, this creates a paradox. Electricity is used to generate heat, and then additional electricity is consumed to dissipate it. Even in regions where nearby buildings require heating for much of the year, simply discarding the heat can appear inefficient.

    This has led some mining companies to ask a simple question: Why not reuse the heat instead of venting it? This line of thinking underpins efforts to integrate Bitcoin mining with greenhouse agriculture.

    Did you know? In parts of Finland and Sweden, waste heat from conventional data centers is used to warm entire residential districts through municipal heating grids.

    The Manitoba pilot: Canaan and Bitforest collaborate

    The pilot project in Manitoba brings together hardware maker and mining company Canaan with Bitforest Investment, a firm focused on sustainable infrastructure and agriculture.

    The project operates at about 3 megawatts (MW) of mining capacity and is planned as a 24-month proof of concept. Its goal is not only to demonstrate technical feasibility but also to collect data that can help determine whether the model can scale to larger agricultural or industrial applications.

    Instead of typical air-cooled mining machines, the system uses liquid-cooled servers from Canaan’s Avalon series. Around 360 mining units are installed and connected to a closed-loop heat exchange system that transfers heat into the greenhouse’s water-based heating infrastructure.

    Rather than fully replacing existing heating systems, the mining heat is used to preheat incoming water. This can reduce the energy required from conventional boilers, particularly during colder months.

    The synergy between Bitcoin mining and greenhouse agriculture

    Greenhouses require steady, continuous heating, particularly in northern regions where winter temperatures can be extremely low. Tomatoes and other year-round crops are sensitive to temperature fluctuations, making reliable heat essential for consistent production.

    From an engineering perspective, this constant energy demand aligns well with Bitcoin mining, which produces predictable and continuous heat. When captured efficiently, a significant portion of the electricity consumed by mining equipment can be converted into usable thermal energy.

    Liquid cooling plays a key role in this process. Compared with air cooling, liquid-cooled systems capture heat at higher and more stable temperatures, making them suitable for industrial heating applications rather than simple space heating.

    Did you know? Some companies sell Bitcoin mining rigs designed to function as household space heaters, allowing owners to heat rooms while mining cryptocurrency.

    Reducing operational costs through thermal efficiency

    Heating represents a significant operating cost for greenhouse operators. Any reduction in fossil fuel use has the potential to improve profitability while also lowering carbon emissions.

    For miners, reusing heat can improve overall energy efficiency. It may help make marginal sites more viable, especially in regions where heating demand is consistent and electricity prices remain reasonable.

    This is why heat recovery is attracting interest beyond agriculture, including applications in home heating, industrial drying and district heating networks.

    While heat reuse does not eliminate mining’s energy footprint, it can significantly improve how efficiently that energy is used.

    New operational models in digital mining

    The Manitoba initiative is not an isolated case. Across the sector, operators are testing different ways to reduce costs and improve community relations as mining complexity and industry competition have increased in recent years.

    Some mining companies have relocated operations closer to renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric dams, wind farms and solar plants. Others are developing modular facilities designed to make use of excess energy production.

    Heat reuse adds another layer to this strategy, positioning miners as partners in local infrastructure rather than standalone industrial sites. This approach also mirrors trends in modern data center design, where waste-heat recovery is increasingly incorporated into urban planning, particularly in colder European cities.

    Establishing a replicable model for cold-climate heat recovery

    Canaan’s primary goal is not just to heat a single greenhouse but to develop a model that can be applied in other cold-climate regions.

    It involves gathering operational data on:

    • Heat capture efficiency

    • Reliability of liquid-cooled mining systems

    • Integration with existing greenhouse heating equipment

    • Maintenance and operational complexity

    • Overall cost savings compared with conventional heating.

    If the economics prove sustainable over time, similar systems could be deployed in northern US states, parts of Europe and other agricultural regions that rely heavily on heated greenhouses.

    Did you know? Several French municipalities have piloted public swimming pools heated partly by server waste heat from nearby facilities.

    Limitations of mining-integrated heating

    Despite its potential, waste-heat reuse is not a solution for every situation:

    • The upfront cost of liquid-cooled systems and heat-exchange equipment is higher than that of standard mining setups. Without steady, long-term heating demand, these costs may not be justified.

    • Not every location has suitable nearby partners that can use the heat efficiently. Because heat cannot be transported over long distances without significant losses, close proximity between mining facilities and heat users is required.

    • Farming operations depend on reliable uptime. Any interruption in mining could affect heating consistency, so backup systems must remain in place.

    • Heat reuse does not address broader questions about energy sources. The environmental benefits are greatest when mining operations rely on low-carbon electricity.

    Why this matters for Bitcoin’s long-term story

    Bitcoin’s energy debate has increasingly shifted from total consumption figures to how and where that energy is used.

    Projects such as the Manitoba greenhouse pilot suggest that mining infrastructure can be designed to align with local energy and heating needs, rather than compete with them.

    If these models demonstrate commercial viability, they could help position mining as part of regional energy systems. Bitcoin mining would no longer appear as an isolated digital sector but as an infrastructure layer that supports other economic activities.

    Whether integrated heating becomes mainstream will depend on engineering performance, cost trends and long-term reliability.

    Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.

    Source link

    India’s RBI Proposes BRICS CBDC Link for Cross-Border Payments

    f0f7y
    -
    0
    India’s RBI Proposes BRICS CBDC Link for Cross-Border Payments

    India’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), has reportedly proposed an initiative linking BRICS central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) to facilitate cross-border trade and tourism payments. 

    A Reuters report citing two anonymous sources claimed that the recommendation would place the idea of CBDC interoperability on the agenda for the 2026 BRICS summit, which India is scheduled to host.

    Reuters reported that the proposal, if accepted by the Indian government and BRICS partners, would be the first formal consideration of CBDCs within the bloc, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

    While the proposal aims to reduce friction and cost in cross-border payments, the sources told Reuters that the discussions are at an early stage and would depend on agreements on technology, governance and settlement arrangements.