“Any freeze would trade quantum risk for a precedent on property rights and neutrality,” he added.
The debate has been ongoing. Binance founder Changpeng Zhao suggested freezing Satoshi’s estimated 1.1 million bitcoin if the coins remain untouched as quantum technology advances. Bitcoin developer Jameson Lopp has also proposed restrictions on vulnerable coins to prevent future theft. But critics argue that freezing someone’s bitcoin goes against the promise that no one can confiscate it.
Making bitcoin quantum-resistant would mean replacing the digital signatures used to authorize transactions. That requires agreement among developers, miners, wallet providers, exchanges and users.
“Nobody has a credible single number, and anyone offering one is guessing,” Bennett said of the cost. “The real cost isn’t the cryptography; it’s coordinating wallets, exchanges, custodians and protocol developers.”
The replacement signatures could also take up more space on the blockchain, potentially increasing fees or reducing the number of transactions bitcoin can process. Researchers are already working on ways to limit that impact.
The Quantum Alliance, whose members include Hacken, Charles Hoskinson’s Midnight Foundation, Quantus and Postquant Labs, plans to publish common security tests and guidance for moving existing networks to quantum-resistant systems.
Carback also proposed placing vulnerable coins in a trust, allowing owners who can prove ownership to recover their funds. For bitcoin holders, the unresolved question is whether the network can protect their money without changing the rules that made the number one cryptocurrency so appealing in the first place.
