The debate is shaking the Bitcoin community with rare intensity: as quantum computing becomes a credible threat, experts are proposing to permanently freeze the 1.1 million bitcoins held by Satoshi Nakamoto — roughly $70 billion at current prices. The radical idea is deeply dividing developers and miners.
A Quantum Threat That Is No Longer Theoretical
The oldest Bitcoin addresses, particularly Satoshi Nakamoto’s, use the P2PK (Pay-to-Public-Key) format, which directly exposes the public key in the transaction. Unlike the P2PKH (Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash) format used today — which hides the public key behind a hash until spending — P2PK addresses are vulnerable to a Shor’s algorithm attack as soon as a sufficiently powerful quantum computer becomes available.
Shor’s algorithm, developed in 1994 by mathematician Peter Shor, can factor large numbers and solve the discrete logarithm problem in polynomial time — precisely what is needed to derive a private key from a public key. On a classical computer, this operation requires exponential time and remains infeasible. On a stable quantum computer with a few thousand logical qubits, it would become trivial.
However, according to the latest estimates from research laboratories, the threshold of 10,000 logical qubits — the estimated level needed to break the secp256k1 elliptic curve used by Bitcoin — could be reached by 2030-2035. Google, IBM, and several quantum startups have already demonstrated significant progress with processors exceeding 1,000 physical qubits, and quantum error correction is advancing faster than expected.
$70 Billion at Risk
Estimates vary, but the consensus settles around 1.1 million BTC belonging to Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s anonymous creator. These funds, spread across blocks mined at the very beginning of the network (2009), have never moved. For nearly 17 years, they have remained a living legend of the ecosystem — proof that Satoshi never sought personal enrichment.
At the current bitcoin price, hovering around $62,000 to $63,000 on July 5, 2026, these 1.1 million BTC represent a value of approximately $69 to $70 billion. A sum so colossal that its movement, even partial, would cause the market to collapse.
But it is precisely this immobility that creates the problem: if a quantum computer were to crack the private key of any of these addresses, anyone could spend those bitcoins before their rightful owner. There is precedent in the crypto ecosystem: in 2023, several P2PK bitcoins were stolen through nonce weakness attacks in signed transactions.
A recent study showed that a server rented for $3,000 per month can already perform certain cryptanalytic operations on exposed keys. With a quantum computer, this attack would become instantaneous.
The Freeze Proposal: How Would It Work?
The proposal, led by several Core developers and cryptography researchers, consists of adding a consensus rule via a soft fork that would make bitcoins from Satoshi-era P2PK addresses unavailable for spending. In practice, network nodes would reject any transaction originating from these specific addresses, freezing them forever.
Several technical mechanisms are being considered:
- OP_RETURN tagging: mark affected UTXOs as spendable only via post-quantum signatures (Lamport or Winternitz type). This would require voluntary activation by miners.
- Block height validation: define a block after which transactions from first-year P2PK addresses are prohibited. Simple to implement but controversial.
- Miner Activated Soft Fork (MASF): progressive signaling by mining pools, similar to the mechanism used for SegWit or Taproot.
Each of these approaches has its supporters and detractors. The main argument against the freeze is that it would violate Bitcoin’s fundamental principle: the immutability and neutrality of the protocol. Changing the rules retroactively, even for a good cause, would set a dangerous precedent.
A Divided Community: Two Visions of Bitcoin
On one side, the “pragmatists” believe the quantum risk is imminent enough to justify preventive action. “We cannot wait for the first P2PK key to be cracked before acting,” explains a Core developer who requested anonymity. “That would be a collapse of trust in the network overnight.”
De l’autre, les « maximalistes » considèrent que toute modification du consensus pour cibler des adresses spécifiques est une pente glissante. « Si on peut geler les bitcoins de Satoshi aujourd’hui, qui sera le prochain ? demande un mineur influent. Demain, ce seront les adresses d’un exchange sanctionné par les États-Unis, puis les fonds d’un protocole DeFi, puis… »
Between these two extremes, a middle ground is emerging: rather than freezing the bitcoins, the funds should be migrated to addresses secured by a signature Satoshi himself could prove he holds, or use a proof of life — if Satoshi is deceased, his keys will never be used, and the problem disappears. But no one can confirm this.
Historical Precedent: When Ethereum Chose to Freeze
The proposal is not without precedent in blockchain history. In 2016, after the DAO hack on Ethereum, the community chose to freeze...
Analyse détaillée réservée aux membres
Notre équipe d'analystes a préparé une analyse complète avec données exclusives.
🔒 Paiement sécurisé • Stripe • Sans engagement
Déjà abonné ? Connectez-vous
