Bitcoin Targeted by Scam Wave as Quantum-Safe Wallet Proposal Gains Traction
As Bitcoin matures and the broader crypto ecosystem evolves, developers and cybersecurity experts are increasingly focused on long-term resilience and emerging threats. A new Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) aims to proactively protect the network from potential quantum computing vulnerabilities, while recent analysis highlights the growing prevalence of social engineering scams like address poisoning, which have already resulted in millions of dollars in user losses.
Bitcoin Under Siege: Casa CSO Jameson Lopp Warns of Exploding Address Poisoning Scam as Losses Mount
Jameson Lopp, the Chief Security Officer at Casa, a leading Bitcoin self-custody provider, is sounding the alarm on an emerging and underreported threat in the cryptocurrency space: Bitcoin address poisoning attacks.
In a detailed analysis published on Feb. 6, Lopp uncovered troubling patterns in blockchain transactions indicating that attackers are leveraging transaction history to launch deceptive scams aimed at tricking users into sending funds to lookalike addresses.
Address poisoning is a form of social engineering scam that capitalizes on a user's familiarity and trust in previously interacted wallet addresses.
In this attack, a scammer generates a Bitcoin address that closely resembles one in the victim's transaction history — often mimicking the first and last several characters, which are typically the only parts displayed in many wallet interfaces.
The goal? To trick the user into sending funds to the fraudulent address, mistaking it for a legitimate recipient.
Lopp’s investigation into the Bitcoin blockchain revealed that the first traces of these attacks didn’t emerge until block 797570 on July 7, 2023, with 36 suspicious transactions.
The activity then went dormant until block 819455 on Dec. 12, 2023, after which a steady stream of attacks was observed through block 881172 on Jan. 28, 2025. After a short hiatus, the attacks resumed in late March.
“Over these 18 months, just shy of 48,000 transactions were sent that match this profile of potential address poisoning,” said Lopp.
The implications of these findings are not theoretical. According to cybersecurity firm Cyvers, over $1.2 million was stolen via address poisoning scams in March 2025 alone, with February recording an even higher loss of $1.8 million. These scams are not just clever — they are devastatingly effective.
In parallel, blockchain security firm PeckShield reports that Q1 2025 has already seen over $1.6 billion in crypto losses to various exploits and hacks. The majority of this figure stems from the historic $1.4 billion Bybit hack in February — now the largest crypto hack in history.
Cybersecurity experts have attributed many of these coordinated attacks to North Korean state-affiliated hacking entities, notably the Lazarus Group, a collective notorious for its advanced social engineering tactics.
Their strategies have included elaborate schemes such as fake job offers, phishing links distributed via social media, and even deepfake Zoom calls posing as venture capitalists.
In response to these growing threats, Lopp has called on Bitcoin holders and wallet providers to adopt more stringent precautions. He emphasized the need for wallet interfaces to display full Bitcoin addresses to reduce the risk of being deceived by similar-looking addresses.
Additionally, he advises users to double-check all addresses before sending funds, especially when copy-pasting from transaction histories.
Industry Push for Defense
The wave of recent scams is prompting the broader crypto ecosystem to re-examine wallet architecture, UX design, and educational efforts aimed at user protection. Startups and security firms are now developing tools that flag similar-looking addresses, introduce enhanced address verification, and issue warnings for suspicious transactions.
But experts warn that technical solutions alone are not enough.
The rise of address poisoning is a stark reminder of how cybersecurity threats in crypto are evolving. As the industry matures and more capital flows into digital assets, attackers are shifting from brute-force methods to stealthy psychological manipulation.
While losses from hacks and scams have always been part of the crypto narrative, the sheer scale and sophistication of attacks in early 2025 suggest that new defense paradigms are urgently needed — both at the protocol level and the user interface level.
As Jameson Lopp’s report shows, the blockchain may be immutable, but the way we interact with it must continually evolve. And if the nearly 48,000 poisoned transactions tell us anything, it’s that vigilance — not just decentralization — may be the true cornerstone of security in the age of digital finance.
Bitcoin Faces a Quantum Crossroads: New BIP Proposes Hard Fork to Protect Network from Future Quantum Threats
In related news, the Bitcoin network may soon face its most profound technological evolution to date. Developer Agustin Cruz has introduced a draft Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) dubbed the Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAMP).
This proposal calls for a sweeping migration of all BTC holdings to post-quantum cryptographic addresses—an unprecedented initiative aimed at future-proofing the network against the looming threat of quantum computing.
Unlike traditional computing, which relies on binary systems of ones and zeros, quantum computing leverages qubits—quantum bits that can exist in multiple states simultaneously.
This exponential leap in processing power could one day crack encryption methods that modern computers would take millennia to break.
Bitcoin’s current cryptographic backbone includes SHA-256 for mining and ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm) for validating transactions. While these standards remain virtually unbreakable by today’s hardware, they are widely regarded as vulnerable to quantum decryption capabilities.
According to Cruz, legacy addresses that haven’t yet transacted remain concealed by virtue of their cryptographic privacy. However, addresses that have made public transactions—thus exposing their public keys—are more vulnerable to decryption should sufficiently powerful quantum computers come online.
Cruz’s BIP proposes a network-wide migration deadline, enforced at a future block height. After this point, nodes running the updated software would reject any transaction from addresses using ECDSA, effectively freezing funds that have not migrated to post-quantum wallets.
This would require a hard fork, a fundamental change to the network that breaks compatibility with non-upgraded nodes. Historically, Bitcoin hard forks have been controversial—seen most notably during the block size wars that gave birth to Bitcoin Cash.
The QRAMP proposal thus reopens deep philosophical debates within the community around decentralization, consensus, and immutability.
“I admire the effort but this will still leave everyone who doesn’t migrate’s coins vulnerable, including Satoshi’s coins,” commented one Reddit user, highlighting the polarizing nature of the proposal.
Another user added, “Bitcoin could implement post-quantum security for all coins, but that would need a hard fork, which due to Bitcoin’s history and the mantra repeated by maxis, would create a new coin and would not be Bitcoin anymore.”
Importantly, the QRAMP initiative is not responding to an imminent quantum threat. It is a precautionary measure designed to prepare the network ahead of technological breakthroughs.
Still, the timing is notable: the proposal comes just weeks after Microsoft unveiled Majorana 1, a quantum processing unit (QPU) that aims to scale to a million qubits per chip—a potential game-changer for quantum acceleration.
Cruz’s proposal allows for a migration window, during which users can freely move their BTC from vulnerable addresses to newly implemented quantum-resistant ones. Wallet developers, blockchain explorers, and infrastructure providers would need to integrate tools and warning systems to assist with this transition. After the cutoff block, un-migrated funds would become effectively unspendable on the upgraded network.
If users and operators choose to stay on the legacy version, a chain split could occur, spawning a separate blockchain that continues supporting ECDSA—yet again raising concerns over network unity and coin fungibility.
The Growing Push for Post-Quantum Blockchain Security
QRAMP is not the only proposal seeking to safeguard Bitcoin from quantum threats. Startups like BTQ Technologies have proposed alternative cryptographic systems altogether. In a recent whitepaper, BTQ suggested replacing Bitcoin’s Proof-of-Work (PoW) model with a quantum-native algorithm called Coarse-Grained Boson Sampling (CGBS).
This approach uses light particles (bosons) to generate unique, verifiable patterns that represent the blockchain’s current state—eliminating reliance on hash puzzles and possibly offering quantum-resistant validation. However, this solution, like QRAMP, would demand a full-scale hard fork and the replacement of existing ASIC hardware with quantum-compatible systems.
Despite the urgency conveyed by Cruz, the success of QRAMP hinges on Bitcoin’s notoriously conservative developer and user community. Bitcoin maximalists, many of whom champion the ethos of “do not change lightly,” may resist any measure requiring a hard fork—particularly one involving abstract future threats rather than immediate vulnerabilities.
Nonetheless, as quantum hardware development accelerates, the window to proactively defend decentralized protocols is closing. Industry veterans warn that waiting for a quantum “zero day” could be catastrophic—not just for Bitcoin, but for all public blockchains reliant on legacy cryptographic schemes.
Cruz and others advocating for QRAMP believe that starting the conversation now—before quantum computers reach critical mass—is vital. Whether the community agrees remains to be seen, but what’s clear is that Bitcoin’s next evolution may not be ideological or economic—it may be cryptographic.
Bitcoin Targeted by Scam Wave as Quantum-Safe Wallet Proposal Gains Traction
As Bitcoin matures and the broader crypto ecosystem evolves, developers and cybersecurity experts are increasingly focused on long-term resilience and emerging threats. A new Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) aims to proactively protect the network from potential quantum computing vulnerabilities, while recent analysis highlights the growing prevalence of social engineering scams like address poisoning, which have already resulted in millions of dollars in user losses.
Bitcoin Under Siege: Casa CSO Jameson Lopp Warns of Exploding Address Poisoning Scam as Losses Mount
Jameson Lopp, the Chief Security Officer at Casa, a leading Bitcoin self-custody provider, is sounding the alarm on an emerging and underreported threat in the cryptocurrency space: Bitcoin address poisoning attacks.
In a detailed analysis published on Feb. 6, Lopp uncovered troubling patterns in blockchain transactions indicating that attackers are leveraging transaction history to launch deceptive scams aimed at tricking users into sending funds to lookalike addresses.
Address poisoning is a form of social engineering scam that capitalizes on a user's familiarity and trust in previously interacted wallet addresses.
In this attack, a scammer generates a Bitcoin address that closely resembles one in the victim's transaction history — often mimicking the first and last several characters, which are typically the only parts displayed in many wallet interfaces.
The goal? To trick the user into sending funds to the fraudulent address, mistaking it for a legitimate recipient.
Lopp’s investigation into the Bitcoin blockchain revealed that the first traces of these attacks didn’t emerge until block 797570 on July 7, 2023, with 36 suspicious transactions.
The activity then went dormant until block 819455 on Dec. 12, 2023, after which a steady stream of attacks was observed through block 881172 on Jan. 28, 2025. After a short hiatus, the attacks resumed in late March.
“Over these 18 months, just shy of 48,000 transactions were sent that match this profile of potential address poisoning,” said Lopp.
The implications of these findings are not theoretical. According to cybersecurity firm Cyvers, over $1.2 million was stolen via address poisoning scams in March 2025 alone, with February recording an even higher loss of $1.8 million. These scams are not just clever — they are devastatingly effective.
In parallel, blockchain security firm PeckShield reports that Q1 2025 has already seen over $1.6 billion in crypto losses to various exploits and hacks. The majority of this figure stems from the historic $1.4 billion Bybit hack in February — now the largest crypto hack in history.
Cybersecurity experts have attributed many of these coordinated attacks to North Korean state-affiliated hacking entities, notably the Lazarus Group, a collective notorious for its advanced social engineering tactics.
Their strategies have included elaborate schemes such as fake job offers, phishing links distributed via social media, and even deepfake Zoom calls posing as venture capitalists.
In response to these growing threats, Lopp has called on Bitcoin holders and wallet providers to adopt more stringent precautions. He emphasized the need for wallet interfaces to display full Bitcoin addresses to reduce the risk of being deceived by similar-looking addresses.
Additionally, he advises users to double-check all addresses before sending funds, especially when copy-pasting from transaction histories.
Industry Push for Defense
The wave of recent scams is prompting the broader crypto ecosystem to re-examine wallet architecture, UX design, and educational efforts aimed at user protection. Startups and security firms are now developing tools that flag similar-looking addresses, introduce enhanced address verification, and issue warnings for suspicious transactions.
But experts warn that technical solutions alone are not enough.
The rise of address poisoning is a stark reminder of how cybersecurity threats in crypto are evolving. As the industry matures and more capital flows into digital assets, attackers are shifting from brute-force methods to stealthy psychological manipulation.
While losses from hacks and scams have always been part of the crypto narrative, the sheer scale and sophistication of attacks in early 2025 suggest that new defense paradigms are urgently needed — both at the protocol level and the user interface level.
As Jameson Lopp’s report shows, the blockchain may be immutable, but the way we interact with it must continually evolve. And if the nearly 48,000 poisoned transactions tell us anything, it’s that vigilance — not just decentralization — may be the true cornerstone of security in the age of digital finance.
Bitcoin Faces a Quantum Crossroads: New BIP Proposes Hard Fork to Protect Network from Future Quantum Threats
In related news, the Bitcoin network may soon face its most profound technological evolution to date. Developer Agustin Cruz has introduced a draft Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) dubbed the Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol (QRAMP).
This proposal calls for a sweeping migration of all BTC holdings to post-quantum cryptographic addresses—an unprecedented initiative aimed at future-proofing the network against the looming threat of quantum computing.
Unlike traditional computing, which relies on binary systems of ones and zeros, quantum computing leverages qubits—quantum bits that can exist in multiple states simultaneously.
This exponential leap in processing power could one day crack encryption methods that modern computers would take millennia to break.
Bitcoin’s current cryptographic backbone includes SHA-256 for mining and ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm) for validating transactions. While these standards remain virtually unbreakable by today’s hardware, they are widely regarded as vulnerable to quantum decryption capabilities.
According to Cruz, legacy addresses that haven’t yet transacted remain concealed by virtue of their cryptographic privacy. However, addresses that have made public transactions—thus exposing their public keys—are more vulnerable to decryption should sufficiently powerful quantum computers come online.
Cruz’s BIP proposes a network-wide migration deadline, enforced at a future block height. After this point, nodes running the updated software would reject any transaction from addresses using ECDSA, effectively freezing funds that have not migrated to post-quantum wallets.
This would require a hard fork, a fundamental change to the network that breaks compatibility with non-upgraded nodes. Historically, Bitcoin hard forks have been controversial—seen most notably during the block size wars that gave birth to Bitcoin Cash.
The QRAMP proposal thus reopens deep philosophical debates within the community around decentralization, consensus, and immutability.
“I admire the effort but this will still leave everyone who doesn’t migrate’s coins vulnerable, including Satoshi’s coins,” commented one Reddit user, highlighting the polarizing nature of the proposal.
Another user added, “Bitcoin could implement post-quantum security for all coins, but that would need a hard fork, which due to Bitcoin’s history and the mantra repeated by maxis, would create a new coin and would not be Bitcoin anymore.”
Importantly, the QRAMP initiative is not responding to an imminent quantum threat. It is a precautionary measure designed to prepare the network ahead of technological breakthroughs.
Still, the timing is notable: the proposal comes just weeks after Microsoft unveiled Majorana 1, a quantum processing unit (QPU) that aims to scale to a million qubits per chip—a potential game-changer for quantum acceleration.
Cruz’s proposal allows for a migration window, during which users can freely move their BTC from vulnerable addresses to newly implemented quantum-resistant ones. Wallet developers, blockchain explorers, and infrastructure providers would need to integrate tools and warning systems to assist with this transition. After the cutoff block, un-migrated funds would become effectively unspendable on the upgraded network.
If users and operators choose to stay on the legacy version, a chain split could occur, spawning a separate blockchain that continues supporting ECDSA—yet again raising concerns over network unity and coin fungibility.
The Growing Push for Post-Quantum Blockchain Security
QRAMP is not the only proposal seeking to safeguard Bitcoin from quantum threats. Startups like BTQ Technologies have proposed alternative cryptographic systems altogether. In a recent whitepaper, BTQ suggested replacing Bitcoin’s Proof-of-Work (PoW) model with a quantum-native algorithm called Coarse-Grained Boson Sampling (CGBS).
This approach uses light particles (bosons) to generate unique, verifiable patterns that represent the blockchain’s current state—eliminating reliance on hash puzzles and possibly offering quantum-resistant validation. However, this solution, like QRAMP, would demand a full-scale hard fork and the replacement of existing ASIC hardware with quantum-compatible systems.
Despite the urgency conveyed by Cruz, the success of QRAMP hinges on Bitcoin’s notoriously conservative developer and user community. Bitcoin maximalists, many of whom champion the ethos of “do not change lightly,” may resist any measure requiring a hard fork—particularly one involving abstract future threats rather than immediate vulnerabilities.
Nonetheless, as quantum hardware development accelerates, the window to proactively defend decentralized protocols is closing. Industry veterans warn that waiting for a quantum “zero day” could be catastrophic—not just for Bitcoin, but for all public blockchains reliant on legacy cryptographic schemes.
Cruz and others advocating for QRAMP believe that starting the conversation now—before quantum computers reach critical mass—is vital. Whether the community agrees remains to be seen, but what’s clear is that Bitcoin’s next evolution may not be ideological or economic—it may be cryptographic.