Changpeng Zhao proposes freezing Satoshi's bitcoins: protection against quantum threat or a blow to decentralization?
Binance founder Changpeng Zhao has put forward a radical proposal concerning the legacy of Bitcoin's creator. He suggests issuing an ultimatum for wallets linked to Satoshi Nakamoto: move their coins to a secure format within 12 months, or they will be frozen forever. This statement comes amid growing concerns about the vulnerability of old Bitcoin addresses to quantum computing.
Quantum threat and old wallets
Zhao warns that inaction on this issue could lead to catastrophic consequences. Once quantum computers achieve sufficient computational power, coins in outdated addresses using the Pay-To-Public-Key (P2PK) format will become easy prey for attackers. Bitcoin from the early period, including presumably Satoshi's own coins, is stored in this format.
Zhao's idea is to give the community, and specifically holders of these "dormant" coins, a one-year period to transfer funds to more secure addresses, for example, using multi-signature schemes or more complex cryptographic algorithms. If the coins are not moved within this time, they will be permanently locked in the network. According to his estimate, only about 20 million coins would remain in the new protocol, as the rest would be frozen.
Precedent in the industry
Notably, a similar idea was previously proposed by Emin Gün Sirer, CEO of Ava Labs. He also pointed out the vulnerability of the P2PK format, which fully exposes the public key, making it susceptible to quantum hacking. Sirer emphasized that modern blockchains, such as Avalanche, do not use this format, but it poses a serious problem for early Bitcoin addresses.
My analysis: Zhao's proposal certainly sounds logical from a proactive security standpoint. However, its implementation will face a fundamental contradiction. Freezing assets, even inactive ones, is a direct challenge to the principle of immutability and non-confiscation upon which Bitcoin is built. Furthermore, we cannot be sure that Satoshi or other early miners holding these coins are alive or have simply lost access to their keys. Forcibly seizing their funds could set a dangerous precedent, undermining trust in the core properties of cryptocurrency. The question is not "how" to do this, but "whether" it is worth doing, sacrificing a key principle for protection against a potential, albeit real, threat.