|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
- BIP-361, co-authored by Jameson Lopp, proposes a three-phase plan to freeze Bitcoin held in quantum-vulnerable addresses — including Satoshi’s estimated $74 billion — within five years of activation, with a zero-knowledge proof recovery window for those who still hold their seed phrase.
- Roughly 34% of Bitcoin’s total supply sits in older P2PK address formats that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could compromise, potentially enabling mass theft that would damage network trust and value.
- The Bitcoin community has reacted sharply, with prominent voices calling the proposal “authoritarian,” “confiscatory,” and “laughable” — arguing it violates Bitcoin’s foundational promise that no third party can render coins unspendable.
A group of Bitcoin developers has put forward a plan to freeze coins that could one day be stolen by quantum computers — including the roughly $74 billion worth sitting untouched in wallets long attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto. The proposal, called BIP-361, has ignited one of the more philosophically charged debates the Bitcoin community has seen in years.
The threat quantum computing poses to early Bitcoin
Around 34% of Bitcoin’s total supply sits in addresses that use an older cryptographic format — Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK) — that would become vulnerable if a sufficiently powerful quantum computer were ever built. These include early mining rewards from Bitcoin’s founding era. A bad actor with access to quantum computing power could theoretically derive the private keys needed to drain those wallets.
Cypherpunk and Bitcoin security researcher Jameson Lopp, along with five co-authors, published BIP-361 as a draft on GitHub this week — the second stage of a three-part framework aimed at making Bitcoin quantum-resistant. Lopp told Cointelegraph the proposal is still early-stage and not yet ready for adoption, describing it as “a rough sketch of one way we could approach the issue of a looming circulating supply shock.”
Three phases, one contentious plan
BIP-361 builds on BIP-360, released in February, which introduced a new quantum-resistant address format called Pay-to-Merkle-Root. That earlier proposal protects new coins going forward — BIP-361 addresses what happens to the older, exposed supply.
The plan works in three stages following activation. After three years, users would be blocked from sending Bitcoin to old-style addresses. Five years in, coins still sitting in quantum-vulnerable wallets would be frozen — effectively unspendable by anyone, including their rightful owners who failed to migrate. A third phase offers a lifeline: holders who still possess their seed phrase could use zero-knowledge proofs to recover frozen funds even after the deadline.
The authors argue the proposal is defensive rather than punitive. Their logic: coins that stay frozen simply make the rest of Bitcoin slightly more scarce and valuable. Coins recovered by a quantum attacker, by contrast, flood the market and erode trust across the entire network.
“This is not an offensive attack, rather, it is defensive: our thesis is that the Bitcoin ecosystem wishes to defend itself … against those who would prefer to do nothing.”
Bitcoin’s community calls it confiscation
The reaction from prominent Bitcoin voices has been swift and pointed. Bitcoin Magazine editor Brian Trollz rejected the idea outright. TFTC founder Marty Bent dismissed it as “laughable.” Phil Geiger of Metaplanet put it most bluntly: “We have to steal people’s money to prevent their money from being stolen.”
Also Read: Stablecoin Yields Could Hollow Out Community Banks — And Washington Is Asking the Wrong Question
The philosophical objection runs deep. Bitcoin’s core appeal has always included the promise that no authority — government, developer, or otherwise — can touch your coins without your private key. BIP-361, critics argue, violates that promise by rendering some UTXOs permanently unspendable through a protocol change. One commenter called it “highly authoritarian and confiscatory.”
Lopp himself acknowledged the proposal will evolve. Whether the Bitcoin community ever reaches consensus on something this divisive — especially when Satoshi’s coins are caught in the middle — remains a genuinely open question.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is for general purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. The author’s views are personal and may not reflect the views of Chain Affairs. Before making any investment decisions, you should always conduct your own research. Chain Affairs is not responsible for any financial losses.
