Bitcoin’s potential vulnerability to quantum attacks is putting the network’s future at a crossroads. The recent BIP-361 proposal split the community over freezing legacy addresses.
A recently proposed solution to Bitcoin’s quantum vulnerability has split the community over the potential to freeze legacy wallets, including Satoshi Nakamoto’s stash.
Among the most vocal proponents of BIP-361 is Jameson Lopp, a software engineer and cypherpunk. His main opponent is Adam Back, who, according to a New York Times research is the actual Satoshi Nakamoto. The proposal has created mixed reactions for protecting the value of BTC versus protecting its reputation as censorship-free.
BIP361 is a complete non-starter for me, but I would still like to see an attempt by its supporters to put it on the Bitcoin network as either a soft fork or a hard fork. Not because I want to get a "fork dividend," but because we need to see how these things play out.
— Jimmy Song (송재준) (@jimmysong) April 16, 2026
The discussion on freezing non-quantum-resistant early wallets raised the issues of self-sovereignty, censorship, and the long-term future of BTC.
Who wants to freeze addresses on Bitcoin?
Supporters of BIP-361 have proposed a ‘post quantum migration and legacy signature sunset.’ The proposal went live on April 14, sparking a broader discussion of quantum resistance. Rough estimates suggest that around 6.7M BTC may be at risk of quantum attacks due to being held in early, less secure addresses.
BIP-361 is still in its draft phase, with no deadline for signaling support. Responsibility for quantum-proof holding will be personal, with each wallet holder required to upgrade.
In the first stage, the proposal will freeze new transactions to quantum-vulnerable addresses, causing the network to shift to PQ address types. In phase B, all spending to vulnerable addresses will be blocked. The second stage may have a five-year grace period.
In the future, the network may introduce a quantum-safe method for proving ownership and recovering lost BTC.
The argument for freezing BTC is that hacked funds could be sold, undermining its price and general trust. Supporters of the proposal believe quantum hacking will occur and that the old BTC ethos of self-ownership, with no centralized censorship or freezing, is outdated.
Can BTC survive quantum hacking?
Achieving real quantum hacking may be more involved than expected. Satoshi Nakamoto’s addresses use the P2PK standard, meaning their exposed public keys leave them vulnerable to hacking.
However, Satoshi’s stash is spread across over 22,000 addresses, and each one will have to be hacked before releasing the coins.
The other argument against BIP-361 is that quantum computers are not yet easily available outside a research context, and it is highly improbable that they would be used for attacks. The approach may also be too expensive to perform, at least in the early stages of quantum computing. Currently, quantum algorithms are improving, lowering the requirements for a physical computer, but still far from a real attack.
The proposal underscores the need to change BTC for its long-term survival, while not undermining market value, reputation, and the proof of work to date. The migration to quantum-proof addresses raises the issue of what makes a ‘real’ BTC coin.
Other suggestions include a hard fork to a quantum-proof network at a predetermined block, with a long grace period to claim coins. A similar solution was suggested by Satoshi Nakamoto in the early days of BTC.
Some suggest leaving the BTC network as it is, with old wallets left as a bounty for the creators of viable quantum computers. Overall, freezes may protect the holdings of big whales and prevent a flash crash for BTC if someone is able to hack wallets. But in the short term, some see BIP-361 as breaking the underlying BTC ethos of avoiding censorship and asset freezes.
