1.1 million bitcoins worth around $91 billion could be permanently locked up—not a single coin movable 🦖
🕐 最新解读群里更新
These 1.1 million bitcoins belong to Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator. At around $83,045 per bitcoin on Sunday morning, they’re worth roughly $91 billion. They’re scattered across early addresses from Bitcoin’s first year, 2009, and not a single coin has moved in more than a decade. But now, one of the fiercest debates in the Bitcoin developer community is whether to freeze them before quantum computers can steal them ⚠️
At the center of the debate is a draft proposal numbered BIP-361, titled “Post Quantum Migration and Legacy Signature Sunset.” Its lead author is developer Jameson Lopp. It has been listed in Bitcoin’s official repository of improvement proposals since February 2026, and its status is still Draft.
The proposal is designed to work in two stages. First, about three years after activation—or 160,000 blocks—the network would stop accepting payments to vulnerable addresses. New funds could only go to quantum-resistant formats. Second, five years after activation, on a date announced well in advance, legacy signatures would only be able to spend funds through a quantum-resistant recovery process.
Here’s the twist: that recovery process relies on the legitimate owner knowing something an attacker doesn’t—the seed phrase. But Satoshi’s coins use the earliest P2PK format, where the public keys have been plainly visible on the blockchain since the coins were created. They don’t have that advantage. Under the proposal as currently written, these 1.1 million bitcoins would most likely be permanently locked up—unless a future proposal creates a slow recovery path for assets like these.
Why the urgency? The draft says that, as of March 1, 2026, more than 34% of Bitcoin public keys have already been exposed on the blockchain. Only coins with exposed public keys are at risk. Legacy addresses expose their keys from the start, while newer formats expose them only after funds have been spent once. The proposal’s authors cite several roadmaps suggesting that quantum computers could arrive as soon as 2027 to 2030.
The opposition is just as firm. Bitcoin promises that nobody can lock up someone else’s coins. Even with several years’ notice, this proposal would still amount to locking up other people’s coins. Even Lopp himself isn’t fond of his own proposal. In April this year, he told CoinDesk, “I wrote it because I like the alternative even less.”
And this isn’t something a committee gets to decide. A soft fork requires broad agreement from miners, nodes, wallets, and exchanges. Both proposals are still only drafts, with a long way to go before approval.
My take: the real dividing line here isn’t whether Satoshi will come back. It’s whether Bitcoin should break its most fundamental promise in order to defend against future threats. Once coins can be locked based on their format, a precedent has been set. Today, it’s old addresses that haven’t moved in more than a decade. What about tomorrow? 👀
Let’s talk in the comments: do you think these 1.1 million bitcoins should be frozen, or should they remain untouched, even at the risk of being cracked by quantum computers?
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, we bring you the latest Bitcoin stories—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀
🕐 最新解读群里更新
These 1.1 million bitcoins belong to Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator. At around $83,045 per bitcoin on Sunday morning, they’re worth roughly $91 billion. They’re scattered across early addresses from Bitcoin’s first year, 2009, and not a single coin has moved in more than a decade. But now, one of the fiercest debates in the Bitcoin developer community is whether to freeze them before quantum computers can steal them ⚠️
At the center of the debate is a draft proposal numbered BIP-361, titled “Post Quantum Migration and Legacy Signature Sunset.” Its lead author is developer Jameson Lopp. It has been listed in Bitcoin’s official repository of improvement proposals since February 2026, and its status is still Draft.
The proposal is designed to work in two stages. First, about three years after activation—or 160,000 blocks—the network would stop accepting payments to vulnerable addresses. New funds could only go to quantum-resistant formats. Second, five years after activation, on a date announced well in advance, legacy signatures would only be able to spend funds through a quantum-resistant recovery process.
Here’s the twist: that recovery process relies on the legitimate owner knowing something an attacker doesn’t—the seed phrase. But Satoshi’s coins use the earliest P2PK format, where the public keys have been plainly visible on the blockchain since the coins were created. They don’t have that advantage. Under the proposal as currently written, these 1.1 million bitcoins would most likely be permanently locked up—unless a future proposal creates a slow recovery path for assets like these.
Why the urgency? The draft says that, as of March 1, 2026, more than 34% of Bitcoin public keys have already been exposed on the blockchain. Only coins with exposed public keys are at risk. Legacy addresses expose their keys from the start, while newer formats expose them only after funds have been spent once. The proposal’s authors cite several roadmaps suggesting that quantum computers could arrive as soon as 2027 to 2030.
The opposition is just as firm. Bitcoin promises that nobody can lock up someone else’s coins. Even with several years’ notice, this proposal would still amount to locking up other people’s coins. Even Lopp himself isn’t fond of his own proposal. In April this year, he told CoinDesk, “I wrote it because I like the alternative even less.”
And this isn’t something a committee gets to decide. A soft fork requires broad agreement from miners, nodes, wallets, and exchanges. Both proposals are still only drafts, with a long way to go before approval.
My take: the real dividing line here isn’t whether Satoshi will come back. It’s whether Bitcoin should break its most fundamental promise in order to defend against future threats. Once coins can be locked based on their format, a precedent has been set. Today, it’s old addresses that haven’t moved in more than a decade. What about tomorrow? 👀
Let’s talk in the comments: do you think these 1.1 million bitcoins should be frozen, or should they remain untouched, even at the risk of being cracked by quantum computers?
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, we bring you the latest Bitcoin stories—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀