Changpeng Zhao proposed freezing Satoshi's bitcoins: protection against quantum threat or a blow to decentralization?
Binance founder Changpeng Zhao has made a resonant proposal: give Satoshi Nakamoto 12 months to move his bitcoins, and after the deadline, freeze them forever. At first glance, this initiative sounds like a precautionary measure, but in reality, it raises fundamental questions about blockchain immutability and the principles of decentralization.
What is the essence of the proposal?
Zhao argues his idea based on the impending quantum threat. In his view, early Bitcoin wallets using the Pay-To-Public-Key (P2PK) format are particularly vulnerable. The development of quantum computing could allow attackers to crack these old addresses. If nothing is done, Satoshi's coins and those of other early "whales" would essentially fall to whoever launches a quantum attack first.
Zhao's logic is as follows: only about 20 million coins should remain in the new protocol, with the rest being locked. A one-year "window" would give owners of inactive coins the opportunity to transfer them to a secure format. Otherwise, they face permanent freezing.
Quantum threat: reality or distant future?
This idea is not new. Ava Labs CEO Emin Gün Sirer previously made a similar proposal. He pointed out that wallets from Nakamoto's active period use P2PK, which fully exposes the public key. According to his assessment, quantum computers could simplify number factorization, making such addresses extremely vulnerable.
However, Sirer also noted that a quantum attacker would only have a small "window of opportunity," complicating the task. Modern wallets and systems, such as Avalanche, do not use P2PK, but it was widely used in Bitcoin's early days.
My analysis: risk or precedent?
From a technical standpoint, the concerns of Zhao and Sirer are justified. Quantum computing is not science fiction but a matter of time. However, the proposal for forced freezing of coins, even with an ultimatum, sets a dangerous precedent. Who, and by what right, would decide the fate of others' assets? This is a direct challenge to the principle of "not your keys, not your coins." Moreover, if the community accepts such a decision, it effectively acknowledges that the Bitcoin network can be altered at the will of a group of people, undermining trust in its immutability.
For now, this is just a discussion, but it shows that the crypto community will sooner or later have to find a balance between security and the fundamental principles of decentralization. Otherwise, protection from the quantum threat could turn into a much more serious one—a threat to the very spirit of Bitcoin.