BeGreenly Coin Official

CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju dropped a warning today that spread fast across the crypto world. His claim: roughly 6.89 million Bitcoin, worth hundreds of billions at current prices is sitting in old, dormant addresses that could one day be cracked open by quantum computers. It sounds dramatic. But is it real? And if it is, how worried should you actually be?
What Is the Problem Exactly?
In Bitcoin's earliest days, a specific address format was used called P2PK -- Pay-to-Public-Key. The issue with this format is simple: it exposes the public key directly on the blockchain. Under normal circumstances this is not a problem, because deriving a private key from a public key is computationally impossible for any classical computer.
Quantum computers change that equation. There is an algorithm called Shor's Algorithm that a sufficiently powerful quantum machine could use to reverse-engineer a private key from a public key essentially unlocking someone's wallet without ever knowing their password. Satoshi Nakamoto's estimated 1.1 million BTC sits in exactly these kinds of old addresses. So does a large chunk of Bitcoin that has not moved in over a decade.

What Are Experts Actually Saying?
Opinions across the space are genuinely divided, and that is worth acknowledging upfront.
Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream and one of Bitcoin's earliest technical architects, has been the loudest skeptic. In December 2024 he called quantum progress "hugely exaggerated" and said computers capable of breaking Bitcoin's cryptography are not remotely close to existing this decade or the next. He urged people not to fall for the fear.
Chamath Palihapitiya took a middle-ground position around the same time. He agreed that quantum is a real risk to older cryptographic standards, but stressed it is not immediate. He suggested Bitcoin forks should eventually implement quantum-resistant crypto for new transactions -- while accepting that old exposed addresses will remain permanently vulnerable unless the community makes a hard decision about them.
Emin Gun Sirer, founder of Ava Labs, went further and proposed in early 2025 that Satoshi's 1.1 million BTC should be actively frozen by the community as a precaution. He referenced Deloitte research estimating around 4 million BTC -- about 20 percent of total supply -- sits in vulnerable legacy addresses.
Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, said in February 2025 that quantum threats are still very far away, and Bitcoin will add quantum-resistant addresses long before any real attack becomes possible. His more interesting point was about lost wallets: coins belonging to people who are dead or have permanently lost their keys will eventually be cracked and recirculate into the market. He sees this as an inevitable long-term reality rather than a catastrophe.
On-chain analyst Willy Woo added a market angle just yesterday, warning that Bitcoin's recent underperformance against gold -- breaking a 12-year trend -- may already reflect quiet quantum anxiety being priced in by sophisticated investors.
CoinShares Research published the most measured take in early February 2026: only around 1.7 million BTC sits in the most exposed P2PK format, practical threats are at least a decade away, and quantum computers cannot touch Bitcoin's 21 million supply cap or its mining system regardless.
So Will Bitcoin Actually Die Because of This?
No. Bitcoin is not going to end because of quantum computing. But the threat is real in the long term, and dismissing it completely would be a mistake.
Here is the honest picture. Breaking Bitcoin's elliptic curve cryptography using Shor's Algorithm requires a quantum computer with millions of stable, error-corrected logical qubits. The most advanced quantum systems today operate somewhere between a few hundred and a few thousand physical qubits -- and physical qubits are not the same thing as the error-corrected logical qubits needed for a real cryptographic attack. The gap between where quantum hardware is today and where it needs to be to threaten Bitcoin is genuinely enormous. Most serious researchers put a credible attack anywhere from 10 to 30-plus years away.
What quantum computers cannot do is alter Bitcoin's blockchain history, change the 21 million coin limit, attack modern address formats, or interfere with mining. The risk is specific: old addresses where the public key is already visible on-chain.
The more realistic worst-case scenario is not a sudden mass theft overnight. It is a slow, gradual unlocking of dormant wallets over time, potentially pushing coins that have been out of circulation for 15 years back into the market. That creates price pressure, but Bitcoin as a network keeps running.
What Is the Solution?
Bitcoin's developers have known about this vulnerability for a long time. Satoshi himself discussed the possibility of upgrading Bitcoin's cryptography in a forum post back in 2010 if the existing standards were ever compromised. The principle is established -- execution is the challenge.
The technical fix involves implementing post-quantum cryptographic signatures, likely lattice-based algorithms similar to what the US National Institute of Standards and Technology recently standardized. These would be rolled out through a protocol upgrade, giving new transactions quantum-resistant protection. Active users migrate their coins to new addresses. Problem largely solved for living, reachable wallet owners.
The harder problem is the dormant wallets. Coins belonging to people who have lost their keys, passed away, or simply disappeared cannot self-migrate. This is what Ju means when he talks about needing "social consensus." The Bitcoin community would have to decide collectively: freeze those coins through a protocol rule change, or accept that they will eventually be cracked by whoever gets there first.
Freezing coins has never been done in Bitcoin's history and cuts against the core principle that no one can touch your Bitcoin without your private key. Letting them get cracked creates a different set of problems around supply and market stability. Neither answer is clean. That is exactly why this conversation needs to happen sooner rather than later.
Why Is No One Acting Yet?
Bitcoin has no CEO, no board, no central authority that can push out an update. Changes require broad consensus among developers, miners, node operators, and the wider community. Rushing a major cryptographic change -- especially one that involves decisions about potentially freezing dormant coins -- risks fracturing the community and causing a contentious chain split that does more damage than the threat itself.
The quantum hardware timeline also provides some natural buffer. Unlike AI which runs on widely available GPUs, quantum computers require exotic physical setups -- superconducting circuits near absolute zero temperature, or laser-trapped atoms in near-perfect vacuum. These are not systems anyone can build quietly. Progress in quantum hardware will be publicly visible long before any attack becomes practically feasible, giving the community time to respond in an organized way.
The consensus among thoughtful observers is simple: there is enough time to prepare, but not unlimited time. An orderly upgrade executed over years is very different from a panicked response executed under pressure.
What Should You Do Right Now?
If you hold Bitcoin in a modern wallet using SegWit or Taproot address formats -- addresses starting with bc1 -- you are not in the immediate risk category. These formats do not expose your public key until you spend from them.
If you have coins in very old addresses, especially ones you have previously sent from, those addresses have exposed public keys and are technically vulnerable. The practical move is to transfer those coins to a modern address format using a reputable hardware wallet.
Beyond that, stay engaged with the conversation. The social consensus Ju is calling for happens in developer forums, community discussions, and protocol votes -- not in boardrooms. Bitcoin's decentralized nature means the community's voice genuinely shapes how this challenge gets resolved.
The Bottom Line
Quantum computing will not kill Bitcoin. But it is a real structural challenge that the community needs to take more seriously than it has. The threat is not coming tomorrow, but the solution -- technical upgrades, community consensus, decisions about dormant coins -- takes years to build properly. The people raising alarms right now are not predicting catastrophe. They are making the case that preparation needs to start now, while there is still time to do it right. Bitcoin has navigated extraordinary challenges before. This one is manageable -- if the community starts treating it like the serious long-term priority that it is.

#BTC #Aİ

Long-term, the crypto industry has been viewing gas fees as a mere cost of decentralization. You purchase and use the native token, store some of them up to use later and move on. It became routine. Routine is not in itself efficient, and by no means user-friendly. By making it possible to complete gas payments with the use of SPL tokens, what Fogo is doing is unhelpful to the old assumption.
The actual problem of gas had never been how much it costs. It was in the nature of how it interferes with the experience. Herofiliti and Saeed derive genuine pressure when they compel users to have a separate balance just in case a transaction is to fail. There is never a time that you are not thinking of whether you have enough. And forget it all, and all the world comes to a standstill. It is that abrupt stop which people remember. It even renders solid on-chain applications unreliable.

The strategy by Fogo does not eliminate the fees. Rather, it changes their dealers. By allowing its users to pay with the tokens of SPL they already have, they do not need to stop their activity to buy a certain native asset. That minor design consideration eliminates the whole friction layer. The blockchain continues to receive payment but the user does not have to micromanage the workings of the blockchain.
This alters the psychology of relating with a chain. Historically, all transactions are ritualistic. You. Click. Sign. Check balances. Confirm. With time, such repetition is tiresome. As a more session-driven model, permissions can be configured in advance and so it is easier to interact after that. The experience begins to look more like the modern internet applications rather than an endless chain of manual confirmations.
A structural change in value flowing is also occurring. The user in the older models is charged directly by the chain. The intermediaries in Fogo model are applications. They may pay the fees, include them in the price of the products, or charge users using stablecoins. It implies that fees are made a business option and not a compulsory protocol. It brings blockchain even nearer to the functioning of digital services in other industries.
The other aspect that has been ignored is there is an effect on token economics. Many people carry a gas token when there is a general need to have one and not passion about it. Such a demand is skimming and short lived. When the day-to-day activity shifts to SPL tokens, the native FOGO token will have a higher chance of being hoarded by validators, infrastructure providers, and builders, who actually require the system to run. That makes it more purpose driven base of holders as opposed to accidental ones.
Naturally, tradeoffs are brought by this design. There is operational complexity associated with handling more than one fee token. Paymasters should deal with settlement effectively. It is dangerous when the power were concentrated in the hands of a few intermediaries. The key difference however is that the complexity moves up to professional level rather than being vested on the shoulders of each user.
Anything Fogo is signaling goes beyond being a technical aspect, in the end. It proposes vision where users deal with applications and not with infrastructure. Where the blockchain is not spoken about and is in the background doing its calculations rather than alerting you every other minute that it exists. Gas does not evaporate, no it does not free itself. It just ceases to be your day-to-day duty.
In the event that such vision succeeds, the greatest victory will not only be speed or cost efficiency. It will become the case that the use of blockchain will be a normal feeling. Seamless. Almost invisible. And then the real adoption can be achieved.
#fogo @Fogo Official
$FOGO

Kripto telpa ir redzējusi neskaitāmus projektus, kas sola revolucionāru sniegumu, bet Fogo ienāk arēnā ar 40 milisekundēm bloku laiku un sub-sekundu galīgumu, kas patiešām eksistē testnet formā. Uzbūvēts kā Solana virtuālās mašīnas saderīgs 1. slāņa blokķēde, Fogo pārstāv ambiciozu mēģinājumu ieviest tradicionālo finanšu izpildes ātrumus decentralizētajā infrastruktūrā. Jautājums nav par to, vai tehnoloģija darbojas kontrolētā vidē, bet vai tā var piepildīt savus solījumus, saskaroties ar reālās pasaules spiedienu.

2024. gada beigās es biju dziļi savā ikdienas darbā, kad kāds jaunākais izstrādātājs nejauši pieminēja: "Hei, vai tu esi pārbaudījis FOGO ķēdi? Viņi apgalvo, ka bloku laiki ir 40ms."
Godīgi sakot, mana pirmā reakcija bija skeptiska. Esmu blockchain inženierijas jomā kopš 2014. gada — no Bitcoin agrīnām dienām līdz Ethereum uzplaukumam, un pēc tam troksnim ap Solana, Avalanche un neskaitāmām "nākamās paaudzes" ķēdēm. Ikviens apgalvo, ka ir "ātrākais", "visvairāk mērogojams", "revolucionārs". Kad tu dzirdi veiktspējas apgalvojumus tagad, tūlītējā doma ir: "Labi, kādi ir testnet skaitļi salīdzinājumā ar mainnet realitāti?"

FOGO arhitektūras un neatkarības tehniskā analīze
Ievads
Vakar es publicēju rakstu, analizējot FOGO tehnoloģiju un potenciālu. Starp komentāriem viens izcēlās un piesaistīja manu uzmanību:
"Labākais, ko esmu pamanījusi, ir tas, ka FOGO balstās uz Solanas pleciem."
Šis komentārs atspoguļo izplatītu maldīgu priekšstatu kriptovalūtu jomā, kas prasa skaidrojumu. Lai gan FOGO mijiedarbojas ar Solanu, attiecības būtībā ir atšķirīgas no tā, ko daudzi pieņem. Šis raksts ir paredzēts, lai sniegtu tehnisko analīzi par FOGO arhitektūru un izskaidrotu, kāpēc to uzlūkot kā L2, kas ir atkarīgs no Solanas, ir neprecīzi.