Changpeng Zhao proposes freezing Satoshi's bitcoins: protection against quantum threat
Binance founder Changpeng Zhao has made an unexpected proposal: give Satoshi Nakamoto 12 months to move his bitcoins, and if no action is taken, freeze those coins permanently. This suggestion came in the context of an upcoming quantum upgrade to the network, which Zhao believes poses a threat to the security of old wallets.
The Quantum Threat and Why It Matters
Zhao warns that if nothing is done, Satoshi's coins stored in Pay-To-Public-Key (P2PK) format will become easy prey for attackers once quantum computing reaches a critical level. Unlike modern wallets that use more secure schemes, P2PK fully exposes the public key, making it vulnerable to decryption using quantum algorithms.
The idea is simple: set a one-year deadline during which the owner (if alive and in control of the keys) can transfer the funds to protected addresses. If this does not happen, the coins are permanently locked to prevent them from being seized by hackers. According to Zhao's estimates, if this measure is implemented, only about 20 million coins would remain in circulation, with the rest being frozen.
Industry Support for the Idea
Notably, a similar concept was already discussed in 2024. Ava Labs CEO Emin Gün Sirer also spoke about the need to freeze Satoshi's coins in P2PK format. He noted that while quantum attacks have a narrow window of opportunity, the threat is real. In his view, the community should consider either freezing Satoshi's coins or setting a deadline for all P2PK wallets, after which the assets would be locked.
My analysis: This initiative raises a fundamental question about Bitcoin's legacy and security. On one hand, freezing the creator's coins sets a precedent that could be seen as a violation of decentralization principles. On the other hand, inaction risks a future quantum computer gaining control over millions of bitcoins, undermining trust in the entire network. The time for debate has come, and the community will have to choose between dogma and pragmatic protection.