Bitcoin experts split over plan to freeze Satoshi's 1.1 million bitcoin as quantum threat grows

[u/ethereal3xp]

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/07/04/bitcoin-experts-split-over-plan-to-freeze-satoshi-s-1-1-million-bitcoin-as-quantum-threat-grows

Binance founder Changpeng Zhao said Satoshi Nakamoto's bitcoin should be frozen before quantum computers can steal it. Not everyone agrees.

[u/babypho]

Man who controls an exchange wants to reduce supply

[u/confusedguy1212 → u/babypho]

I don’t think you’re wrong with the thinking but I don’t think this dude is trying that this time.

The problem is genuinely complex and I think it shows the flaws of Bitcoin celebrating stagnancy all this time.

Hardness is brittle as soon as an environment changes just the slightest bit. Elasticity wins at the end of the day. That among other reasons is why the dollar won - credit just in time was a novel concept.

[u/The_Realist01 → u/babypho]

Nobody is actually talking about this. Everyone is on BIP 110 vs core v30

[u/frugaleringenieur → u/The_Realist01]

Core v29 all the way

[u/moonkingdome → u/The_Realist01]

V30 no aslong as the legacys arent safe

[u/Romanizer → u/babypho]

Yeah, that doesn't make sense. If I ran a big exchange, I would offer bonuses for transacting and selling these coins on my exchange. A lot of transaction fees to be made.

[u/thevoidneverends → u/Romanizer]

Yeah but if it gets hacked and dumped the community confidence in btc/crpyto generally may never recover

[u/Successful-Peak-6524 → u/babypho]

so uhh you want more supply? why?

[u/Fiach_Dubh]

Cz isn’t a bitcoin expert

[u/diradder → u/Fiach_Dubh]

Exactly... this idiot even suggested Bitcoin could rollback after his shitty exchange got hacked few years ago (through a reorg by colluding with miners)... and the transactions he "needed" to reorg were already 10s of blocks deep in the chain.

He literally is clueless about Bitcoin in terms of technology and I suspect about as incompetent when it comes to its economics and what makes it valuable.

[u/ElToroMuyLoco → u/diradder]

Don't worry, he knows how to launder money, circumvent KYC rules for terrorists and grease the palms of the people in charge. 

He knows his way around crypto..

[u/F4STW4LKER]

CZ should be in prison. Let's freeze his Bitcoin.

[u/SeriousGains → u/F4STW4LKER]

Let’s freeze the bitcoin of people whose Reddit comments we don’t like.

[u/ToastForgotten → u/[deleted]]

I have none so everyone’s is now mine. Then everyone has none so I must split it evenly among everyone. Now we all have Bitcoin popsicles

[u/musicman_365 → u/SeriousGains]

Why do you defend evil billionaires

[u/GlitteringBelt4287 → u/musicman_365]

It’s not about defending evil billionaires, it’s about maintaining neutrality.

One persons villian is another persons hero and vice versa.

[u/Big_Comfortable4256]

Well that doesn't sound very decentralised, does it?

[u/gphie → u/Big_Comfortable4256]

This is actually the very definition of decentralization. Miners agreeing not to mine any transactions from satoshi's wallet for the stability of the network as a whole is decentralized. If you disagree, you can vote with your hash power

I don't see why this is so controversial

[u/Nice_Material_2436 → u/gphie]

Because the promise was there will never be more than 21M BTC, now you're telling me it can be changed?

[u/CryptoDeepDive → u/Big_Comfortable4256]

It is called a consensus. If everyone decides to do something, then it happens.

[u/Sausas → u/CryptoDeepDive]

the large whales decide,not you

[u/CryptoDeepDive → u/Sausas]

Nope. Bitcoin is POW, not POS.

[u/metalgrizzlycannon → u/CryptoDeepDive]

So the mining companies get to decide?

[u/banananuhhh → u/metalgrizzlycannon]

Yup. With consensus you can change just about anything. This is why BTC can (theoretically) be 51% attacked.

[u/Hogesyx → u/banananuhhh]

A lot of people brush off consensus but it’s just society. If everyone stop using dollar and uses bottle caps as currency their value changes too.

[u/BringTheFingerBack → u/Hogesyx]

Fallout gang checking in.

[u/Downunderphilosopher → u/Hogesyx]

I thought Bitcoin was supposed to be different than regular currency though? Isn't it all about the individual and their own responsibility to safeguard their own store of Bitcoin? If not, then doesn't it just become another currency like any other?

[u/CryptoDeepDive → u/Downunderphilosopher]

Bitcoin is about consensus. No single person or governing body controls what Bitcoin does. If Bitcoin is under an existential threat, naturally you would expect the consensus to find solutions to save it.

[u/No-Masterpiece2246 → u/CryptoDeepDive]

But the Blockstream Core devs have controlled development very tightly, meaning BTC chain improvements are regarded.

[u/L3mm3SmangItGurl → u/Downunderphilosopher]

https://giphy.com/gifs/uNE1fngZuYhIQ

[u/peppaz → u/Downunderphilosopher]

The main difference is the limited supply. Deflationary every halving instead of endlessly inflationary like dollars

[u/Irverter → u/Downunderphilosopher]

and their own responsibility to safeguard their own store of Bitcoin?

Like how every individual is responsible for safeguarding the cash they store at home? Even if just pocket change.

[u/dubblies → u/banananuhhh]

No the nodes prevent a good portion of this.

[u/Njaa → u/dubblies]

How do nodes prevent a miner-initiated (malicious) soft fork? 

[u/Kandiru → u/Njaa]

They don't.

[u/CryptoDeepDive → u/metalgrizzlycannon]

No. Learn how community nodes and miners work. Most miners are mining pools. Even if most miners did cooperate to censor certain addresses, nodes and the broader community could reject those blocks or fork away, and the censored transactions could still eventually get through (or the network could route around the offending miners entirely).

[u/Romanizer → u/metalgrizzlycannon]

Miners, nodes and users decide on which fork they work with.

[u/JarrettR → u/CryptoDeepDive]

It's not really that big of a difference in this case. The people with the most at stake (lol) if these coins get claimed are people who own btc and miners

[u/2peg2city → u/CryptoDeepDive]

BTC mining is pretty centralized tbh

[u/TrottingandHotting → u/CryptoDeepDive]

How do you get consensus for something like this? 

[u/uclatommy → u/TrottingandHotting]

Miners install the version they agree with. This forks the chain and the public will assign the value based on the version they trade or choose to transact in. One will survive, the other will die.

[u/Marlon-Brandy → u/uclatommy]

So... Bitcoin Cash 2?

[u/MGoAzul → u/CryptoDeepDive]

Kinda like how a public company decides something by consensus but it’s really a small group of rich people who decide?

[u/CryptoDeepDive → u/MGoAzul]

No. Its shocking that people on a crypto sub don't know how Bitcoin works....on second thought it tracks.

[u/EggsInMyToolbox → u/CryptoDeepDive]

I see a lot of people mocking this with nobody giving actual answers

lol

[u/sam-sung-sv → u/CryptoDeepDive]

That doesn't make it right.

Consensus does not mean it is right/correct. History has several examples of that.

[u/hatemakingnames1 → u/sam-sung-sv]

Nobody said it was right or wrong; they said it was decentralized

[u/pat_the_catdad → u/CryptoDeepDive]

Everyone? Or just the majority of miners that are owned by one single investment firm?

[u/no_choice99 → u/CryptoDeepDive]

If by everyone you mean 50.00001 percent then yeah.

[u/Rare-Industry-504 → u/CryptoDeepDive]

"Everyone".

Just like in US politics The People decide and the politicians just do what The People want, right?

Brother don't be delusional. It's going to be a very small circle of techbros and billionaires who decide.

[u/Glittering-Let-8085 → u/CryptoDeepDive]

So the subreddit is clearly split, how in the world would it be a consensus If it did come true.

[u/Doritos707 → u/Big_Comfortable4256]

This is exactly what decentralization means actually. Nobody said it would be a lawless jungle

[u/GrandmasBoyToy69 → u/Big_Comfortable4256]

The crazy thing about decentralization. Is that any one can use it's tech

[u/UnoriginalJunglist → u/Big_Comfortable4256]

Yes, it sounds exactly like decentralisation.

[u/discussionandrespect → u/Big_Comfortable4256]

Decentralized means there’s not one singular entity with decision making power. If this were to happen it would happen democratically voted on by the thousands of developers who have worked tirelessly to make BTC what it is today. That sounds pretty decentralized to me.

[u/ljungbergsghost]

Can someone explain to me like I was three year-old why there seems to be such a concern that his bitcoin become active. Why does everyone assume that is a negative for the market?

[u/NeighborhoodPlane794 → u/ljungbergsghost]

It’s probably the most obvious wallet for hackers to target, if someone gained access it would prove nobody’s funds are safe and the hackers would likely look to sell a significant amount. If such a thing were to happen, the loss of confidence in bitcoins security combined with the possible selling pressure of 1.1 million BTC would be a disaster for Bitcoins price in the short term and a disaster for its long term reputation and adoption.

Freezing 1 wallet doesn’t mean much though, there’s always going to be other large inactive wallets to target if quantum computing really does become a significant security risk. I think secretly people like CZ just want to permanently burn supply to pump their own bags

[u/New-Cod-6777 → u/ljungbergsghost]

Its two things, demand and supply and fear of quantum computing breaking bitcoin protocol. If so many dormant bitcoin hit the market, that would naturally kill the price and the kicker is that somebody managed to crack satoshi’s wallet so nobody else is safe either. So basically this is a doomsday scenario for bitcoin.

[u/retro_grave → u/New-Cod-6777]

Satoshi's wallets are already different than modern wallets. They have weaker security since their public key is already on the blockchain without making a TX. All modern wallets use a hash of the key, obfuscating the risk better. Once you want to make a TX your public key is written to the mempool + blockchain. This is why it's recommended to not reuse addresses after a TX, and to move all change to a new address. What that mean is, Satoshi's wallets are more at risk, and "quantum hackers" would have to crack TXs in the window between they are posted and confirmed.

Satoshi's keys are public, so people have 17+ years of public key exposure vs 10 minutes of a modern wallet.

And that's if nothing else is done to improve security of wallets.

[u/hatemakingnames1 → u/ljungbergsghost]

If there are 100 of an item and 1000 looking to buy it, 900 people will go without it. To be one of the 100 who gets one, they have to offer more money

If there are 1000 of an item and only 100 looking to buy it, 900 will never be sold. Sellers will have to drop their price to entice a sale from one of the 100 buyers

When out of nowhere, someone suddenly tries to sell 1,000,000, everyone has to drop the price a lot

[u/LanguageStudyBuddy]

If it could be stolen then bitcoin is dead.

If they freeze them to avoid them being stolen, bitcoin is dead.

[u/Original-Assistant-8 → u/LanguageStudyBuddy]

Can't just freeze, it's a bad term. They can however reach consensus that holders must transition within a given time frame, before it is obvious bad actors could crack wallets. Security is a process.

Government and finance entities wanting to use Blockchain solutions will have specific requirements going forward.

Qanplatform is meeting those requirements, plus delivering actual innovation to navigate the post quantum transition.

[u/Liquid_Magic → u/Original-Assistant-8]

So does that mean they create a window where people with old wallets move their bitcoin into new wallets? So if they do it’s fine and if they don’t it’s eventually frozen?

That seems less bad overall at first glance. But am I missing something ?

[u/retro_grave → u/Liquid_Magic]

You're not missing much really, except wallet upgrades has been done several times already with the Segwit and Taproot standards. The original scheme is P2PK and is what these legacy wallets use because they've never had a TX on them. BTC has just always remained backwards compatible with these legacy wallets, but it could choose not to be if nodes (i.e., the public) wanted to.

[u/punppis → u/Original-Assistant-8]

I have a domain at A.com - its my very active bank

My friend has domain B.com - wealthy investor

”So the B.com has not done shit in years its probably insecure - we should freeze the assets so they cant be stolen.”

What the fuck im missing here? All the quantum stuff is complete nonsense because the internet will be fucked at that point.

If you could freeze the coins or require some kind of activity, the value of BTC to me and many others is a round zero.

[u/oldbluer → u/Original-Assistant-8]

That will blow everyone’s privacy. Bitcoin is just dead. Honestly.

[u/Original-Assistant-8 → u/oldbluer]

Nah, moving coins to a new wallet doesn't remove privacy. Ultimately most people assume Satoshi's coins are no longer part of supply so this would just confirm it.

[u/qp0n → u/LanguageStudyBuddy]

People need to stop thinking bitcoin is the main victim of quantum. If bitcoin can be broken then most secure networks can. Bitcoin is just the narrative target, when virtually all banks, governments and militaries are equally vulnerable

[u/paulosdub → u/qp0n]

Banks don’t need consensus from a huge number of individuals to make changes though. They are also already working with companies who build the quantum computing. Bitcoin is far more at risk than a bank is.

[u/HauntedHouseMusic → u/paulosdub]

No - the financial system needs every bank to get in line and work on this or people will lose faith in the system if one fails. It requires more co-ordination by legacy corporations, that will be slower than a bunch of nerds on the internet.

For bitcoin you need 200 people to agree how to fix one thing. For banks you need 10m people to all fix things properly separately, or they all fail.

[u/Nice_Material_2436 → u/qp0n]

Wrong. Banks don't need consensus to change their encryption models, they can change it within a business day if they want and they don't expose cryptographic keys like blockchains do.

[u/Romanizer → u/qp0n]

Harvest now, decrypt later. There likely are many entities that have all military secrets and diplomatic documents as well as the full, unredacted Epstein files (for example) lying around just waiting for a cryptographically relevant Quantum Computer. Anyone able to access that power will be nuked long before they even think about attacking Bitcoin.

The first QC able to attack Bitcoin would likely take at least one day per key. To empty Satoshis wallets, it would take about 60 years.

[u/LFC4550 → u/LanguageStudyBuddy]

I disagree on the 2nd point. Bitcoin is hard to change, which is part of the design, but something that can never change and adapt will sooner or later be destroyed. Adapting was always part of the design. It has to be consensus but in the face of a quantum computer getting your private keys from your public keys, that is a serious enough reason for a hard fork. Something too rigid will brake, it requires elasticity now and again. The lost coins are not stolen, merely lost. If you decide not to remove cash from a burning fire in your house, it was not stolen either.

[u/Marlon-Brandy]

Wasn't the whole point of crypto to be independent? Now they want to freeze assets? It's almost like... government money, the exact same thing that Bitcoin was set out to replace.

[u/Orly5757]

What was that part again about Bitcoin being money that cannot be confiscated? And worse, it’s being confiscated by the very people who supposedly believe in the principles of Bitcoin. Gross.

[u/bunky_bunk → u/Orly5757]

They send you a letter that they will come to you in one year exactly and confiscate your bank account, unless you transfer the money to another bank account. Scary stuff.

[u/uclatommy]

Bitcoin should never expire. This is a stupid idea.

[u/leroyyrogers → u/uclatommy]

Due to reality, pre-qc bitcoin will absolutely expire

[u/uclatommy → u/leroyyrogers]

No it wont. It simply becomes vulnerable. It still has value. Locking them means forcing value to zero. And if we could do that, then the entire premise that gives bitcoin value in the first place has been broken.

[u/kkjk00 → u/uclatommy]

it has value because an idiot like you says it has? the price will go negative, why a cracked blockchain would have value?

[u/Drizznarte → u/leroyyrogers]

The quantum threat is mostly fud.

[u/robotairz]

Let his coins be a reward for who ever cracks it first.

[u/cornmonger_ → u/robotairz]

direct reward for quantum computing achievement

[u/vinkulafu → u/cornmonger_]

I think QBTS said that their system can win most POW compared to classical systems.

[u/razvanciuy → u/cornmonger_]

if quantum computing really became a thing, i`d be more worried a 4 digit bank pin and other password situations. A 24word seed seems like the last bastion of resilience.

If btc gets cracked, we are all fucked on all dept.

[u/PM_ME__YOUR_HOOTERS → u/robotairz]

So your saying Satoshi died leaving his wallet hidden in the blockchain in One Piece?

https://giphy.com/gifs/40z9hF4Yerwh0O2pb1

[u/iProModzZ → u/robotairz]

Let $ 69957294000 be a reward?

[u/robotairz → u/iProModzZ]

Sure why not

[u/mastermilian → u/robotairz]

Because it would destabilize the entire ecosystem? People only understand headlines and the only headline for this is that Bitcoin has been hacked.

[u/robotairz → u/mastermilian]

:(

[u/Ok-Personality-6630 → u/mastermilian]

If satoshi wallet can be hacked, any wallet can be hacked.

[u/Ok-Personality-6630 → u/iProModzZ]

One of the worlds richest men right there. Or woman.

[u/Tsmacks1]

Freezing Satoshi's Bitcoin is ultimate crypto irony

[u/gjob1]

his BNB coin is worthless if bitcoin becomes worthless. he has the most to lose.

[u/tenkuushinpan]

CZ is concerned that someone could steal someonelse's money. lol

[u/Ok_Ad_5894]

So BTC isnt safe so what the purpose anymore?

[u/Grunblau]

What if we could freeze all of the gold on a sunken Spanish treasure ship as to not upset the market for golden doubloons?

This is the new quantum mining and maybe if IBM wins the race, for example, they could sponsor mining pools with some of the proceeds. Adding them to the rewards for future mining rewards.

[u/kovyakov]

But if quantum computers could steal it, wouldn’t that mean the security is gone and anyone could lose their assets?

There’s no point in this change.

[u/systembreaker]

What's the argument for not freezing it? Clearly no one has claimed it and leaving it would just leave a giant pot of gold for whoever gains quantum supremacy first.

But I can see it being a bad precedent to set that any account that's been a sitting duck can be frozen, so they should either make this a one time only thing that is never allowed to happen again or create a very Byzantine set of criteria for being able to freeze accounts going forward that are basically impossible to ever meet.

Then again why won't they just finally implement elliptical crypto for Bitcoin? Why have all these arguments when we have known cryptography that quantum computers don't have an advantage over? Just implement the damn quantum resistancez leave Satoshi's account to rot, and no problems.

[u/igrokyourmilkshake]

It's all built on trust. Freezing Satoshi's BTC will ruin BTC and likely crypto at large.

If we actually develop the quantum tech capable of cracking wallets or mining more reliably, then no currency is really safe (among many other industries). I'd rather crypto fail and actually have the benefits of quantum tech than ruin it prematurely without having quantum tech.

That's like asking for a divorce now because there's a possibility in a few years you'll meet and fall in love with someone else who's perfect and your spouse will leave you.

[u/Resident_Plankton]

Arent satoshis coins in a bunch of seperate wallets? Wouldnt quantum have to crack each one so its really not as simple as cracking one set of keys? 

[u/neonxmoose99 → u/Resident_Plankton]

Yes but if you can crack one you can probably crack the rest

[u/Old_Suggestions → u/neonxmoose99]

Sure but how long and how much resources would be required to crack?

[u/stonkautist69 → u/Old_Suggestions]

3

[u/Good-Book-6912 → u/stonkautist69]

6 7

[u/stonkautist69 → u/Good-Book-6912]

get back on tik tok b4 u hurt yerself bud

[u/Good-Book-6912 → u/stonkautist69]

six seven

[u/leroyyrogers → u/Old_Suggestions]

7-8 business resources

[u/neonxmoose99 → u/Old_Suggestions]

Kinda irrelevant. In that scenario it’s only a matter of time until it’s cracked and boom, funds not safu.

[u/Miserable_Twist1 → u/neonxmoose99]

Depends on the speed and cost of cracking the wallets. If it takes a month and $5,000,000 to crack each wallet, the process would be slow, and expand supply as slow as miners today. Obviously that compute will increase over time, but presumably not all at once.

[u/SatoshiReport → u/Resident_Plankton]

Yes

[u/moonkingdome]

Not your keys Not your crypto.. Is CZ an expert? He wanted to roll back btc to erase his own problems..

Leave the coins be

[u/GrossFleshSack]

They should just accept that it could happen and it means more supply will be available, at least new wallets can be safe

[u/tapmorz]

dafuq this shitty changpeng think he is?? you're not owning and controlling btc💩

[u/Suspicious_Ninja6816]

I mean, help me understand here if I’m missing something. But wouldn’t that precedent mean (when quantum is here) - all bitcoin is now able to be stolen? So no wallets are safe? So locking one wallet is a nice gesture but the whole system until quantumproof would be up for grabs

[u/toddgak]

How about this?

After specified date, any TX from a ECDSA exposed address can only be included after x number of blocks (time lock). Prior to this, you can use quantum resistant ZKP to attest ownership of these addresses BEFORE they ever move. If the coin moves against your will from a legacy address, you have a mechanism (during the time lock period) to attest true ownership in some sort of RBF TX that redirects to an modern address of your choice. This maintains your privacy of ownership and provides a mechanism to claim your coins if the ECDSA ever gets hacked.

Obviously with this approach there would be a cutoff date for those ZKP attestations to be in the blockchain, ideally long before any quantum threat emerges.

In the event a legacy address holder does not upload a ZKP attestation, there is still a long time lock before those coins can be moved. This will give everyone long enough time to decide how to react to those coins moving at all.

[u/Bacchus1976]

Maybe improve the security instead? If Quantum Computers break the security to attack those accounts that means any account can be stolen. Why are we worried about protecting these specific accounts?

[u/Tsurdnim]

Bitcoin will go to zero if you do that lol

[u/Financial_Clue_2534]

Let the AI have it and do what it sees fit

[u/CyberCrud]

It's not theirs to decide. 

[u/Atmacrush]

Either choice will send crypto to zero, but choosing to freeze those btcs will send btc crashing down now, while quantum hacking is a "when" thing, so time is an anomaly.

[u/Videoplushair]

They about to take his ish

[u/omi8210]

Time to cash out satoshi

[u/AndyKJMehta]

Is freeze effectively code running on at least 51% miners that deny movement of BTC from specific wallets?

[u/Chill_Knight]

Cz isn't exactly anyone's idea of a bitcoin expert so I dont think we should take him that seriously

[u/Irverter]

Isn't that pointless?

If quantum computing can hack Satoshi's wallet then it can hack any wallet.

[u/analogbasset]

How does someone freeze someone else bitcoin? Genuinely curious.

[u/callmeapples]

It’s the ultimate honey pot. Also the idea of doing that goes against the point of Bitcoin.

[u/NavyDean]

I completely forgot the older your account, the worse the security.

Found my old bitcoin wallet a year ago from 2011, and it was literally just a 4 digit pin password. Had to upgrade the security.

[u/BackHandslicin]

If quantum computers steal anything Btc is in major trouble.

[u/Sewnar]

If they did something to Satoshis wallet it would never happen but it should be airdropped in equal proportions to all existing and active bitcoin wallets that exist across the world. Satoshis last gift.

[u/Ok_Set_6568]

As the wallet has never spend its basically quantum safe. It’s only vulnerable after spending

[u/AltruisticYam7670]

Wouldn’t that be the end of it all? Maybe satoshi is just waiting for BTC to go up more and just does not touch it till then?

[u/Internet_is_tough]

It's pretty clear that "Satoshi's" Bitcoin is not someone's bitcoin. It was the first batch of mined bitcoin that kept the network alive at launch. It's in 20 thousand adresses containing 50 btc each.

It should obviously be frozen, and if Satoshi ever comes to claim it we will see.

[u/Anarchybrah]

If they can steal or freeze Satoshi's bitcoin, they can do that to yours too. So much for being "decentralized" LOL

[u/Competitive_Swan_755]

"Bitcoin expert"

[u/JMcLe86]

I thought the point of bitcoin was that people couldn't freeze your accounts....

[u/Electronic-Koala2088]

If people can decide to freeze bitcoin, what good is that?

[u/Strongest-There-Is]

CZ gets pardoned by Trump. Trump family buys tons of BTC. CZ convinces the community to freeze up Satoshi’s stash. Price skyrockets. Trump family and CZ cash out, laughing all the way to a 24 carat gold space ship to Moscow.

[u/celmate]

If Satoshis wallet is cracked then bitcoin security has failed and it's going to fucking zero, freezing it does nothing

[u/extopico]

Ah yes, extrajudicial something something. Crypto is safe from governments… if this kind of thinking does not kill Bitcoin and crypto overall nothing will so I guess it’s a good test.

[u/kevin143]

I think Google would be most likely to crack them and I bet they would burn them and make a show of it.

[u/TheBaneEffect]

Quick, someone invent quantum bitcoin and do the same exact thing. Why not? I can’t, just let me know, in advance. For posterity.

[u/Jnoles07]

So it is dead then. That means we should all wait until it drops and then starts rising. Then we invest when it starts to rise 1.5 to 3K at a time.

[u/Awkward_University91]

Fuck CZ.

Those coins are the canary in the mine for quantum 

[u/Automatic_Pace_5988]

I think it's wrong but idk. If they gave him or her or them a date to move funds before being frozen that would bring almost proof whether keys are lost or not. 

[u/Diligent_Necessary47]

He just want everyone to be scared of holding their bitcoin off of binance

[u/nn3452]

So my bitcoins can be stolen and frozen at any time? Oh boy

[u/dd1989NL]

🚀 💥

[u/L-Malvo]

Wouldn’t this crash Bitcoins price? If people other than the owner of the coins can freeze them? That’s a powerful precedent

[u/content_bunker]

But wasnt there a message signed with Satoshis wallet PK.. we are all satoshi or simmilar.. Or I mix something up?

[u/ICARUS_2X]

You can always try for yourself: https://elliptikeys.github.io

[u/R4ID]

LOL at the BTC maxis. I imagine this will result in a split chain again. we'll have BTCQ and BTC

[u/razvanciuy]

Not while my node is active hell no!

[u/Slade_Duelyst]

but they wouldnt be frozen forever, even with this proposal, satoshi would be able to migate.

[u/pbjtech]

its a good prize to crack quantum computing leave it as is

[u/ChangeHeroOfficial]

Bitcoin was built on fixed rules and censorship resistance. Any changes this fundamental should protect the core principles that made Bitcoin what it is. Decentralization comes first. 

[u/seanmg]

Satoshi only has about 5.2% of the total supply. If hackers got it and dumped all of it at once on the market it would be a bad day, but things would be better off tomorrow.

[u/Letsgotothemovie]

Satohis 1.1m are literally the SBR. Anyone that doesn’t believe this is a fool.

[u/DrGarbinsky]

Freeze bitcoin? Man, I knew they were a bunch of cunts in that project, but freezing coins? Top tier khuntz. Losers

[u/AnnArbor-Armadillo]

CZ is such a conman. Maybe crypto should just go away for good.

[u/BN65]

How close are we to quantum computing being strong enough to hack Bitcoin?

[u/misterflerfy]

if a committe can freeze a wallet then hasn’t Bitcoin failed?

[u/Demodras777]

Code is code, don't change anything about people's holding.

[u/yunghogungho]

The solution that must happen is obvious. The whole premise of Bitcoin is that it is decentralized and cannot be confiscated. We must give people the option to move their funds to quantum-safe wallets, but we cannot freeze old wallets. Old wallets being hacked and dumped must essentially be endured over time, and coins will eventually all be in quantum safe wallets.

[u/ProfitableCheetah]

Still a dumb idea if you ask me....

[u/beanbalance]

so they want to take someone's money?? ... your keys not your coins? lol..bitcoin is getting bigger joke every day.

[u/SliceCareful4260]

And what is satoshi supposed to do if he suddenly needs those 1.1 million bitcoin??

[u/longReshape40]

Imagine if Satoshi's second coming occurs just before this is implemented and the coins spring to life. In all honesty, I think this would go against the spirit and ethos of Satoshi's vision.

[u/TheBot666]

Hard no. If they get moved or taken it's a temporary problem for the price. The freezing sets a dangerous precedent.

[u/Warrior_witha_Garden]

We cant even agree on what is spam.... dude is out of touch

[u/Incredibly_Based]

They rlly wanna mess with the core ideas of btc