To freeze or not to freeze: Satoshi and the $440 billion in bitcoin threatened by quantum computing

Finance Share Share this article Copy link X icon X (Twitter) LinkedIn Facebook Email To freeze or not to freeze: Satoshi and the $440 billion in bitcoin threatened by quantum computing As quantum computing inches closer to reality, nearly 7 million bitcoin, including Satoshi Nakamoto’s 1 million coins, are potentially at risk. By Olivier Acuna | Edited by Stephen Alpher Feb 22, 2026, 4:00 p.m. Make us preferred on Google Nearly 7 million BTC could be at risk as quantum computing advances. Photo: Olivier Acuna/Modified by CoinDesk) What to know : Quantum computers powerful enough to break Bitcoin's cryptography could expose roughly 7 million coins, including about 1 million attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto, worth an estimated $440 billion at current prices. The Bitcoin community is split between preserving strict neutrality and immutability—letting quantum attackers claim vulnerable coins—and intervening through protocol changes such as burning or migrating at-risk coins to quantum-resistant addresses. While some experts warn that recent research may accelerate the timeline for breaking current encryption, others argue the threat remains distant and can be addressed through engineering upgrades rather than drastic governance changes. In the event that quantum computers one day become capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography, roughly 1 million BTC attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the Bitcoin network, could become vulnerable to theft. At today’s price of about $67,600 per bitcoin, that stash alone would be worth approximately $67.6 billion. STORY CONTINUES BELOW Don't miss another story. Subscribe to the Crypto Daybook Americas Newsletter today . See all newsletters Sign me up By signing up, you will receive emails about CoinDesk products and you agree to our terms & conditions and privacy policy . But Satoshi’s coins are only part of the story. Estimates circulating among analysts suggest that roughly 6.98 million bitcoin may be vulnerable in a sufficiently advanced quantum attack, Ki Young Ju, the founder of CryptoQuant, recently wrote on X . At current prices, the total amount of coins currently exposed represents roughly $440 billion. The question that is now becoming increasingly prevalent in and outside bitcoin circles is simple and, at times, quite controversial Why some coins are exposed The vulnerability is not uniform. In Bitcoin’s early years, pay-to-public-key (P2PK) transactions embedded public keys directly on-chain. Modern addresses typically reveal only a hash of the key until coins are spent, but once a public key is exposed through early mining or address reuse, that exposure is permanent. In a sufficiently advanced quantum scenario, those keys could, in theory, be reversed. Neutrality vs. intervention For some, freezing those coins would undermine bitcoin’s foundational neutrality. “Bitcoin’s structure treats all UTXOs equally,” said Nima Beni, founder of Bitlease. “It does not distinguish based on wallet age, identity, or perceived future threat. That neutrality is foundational to the protocol’s credibility.” Creating exceptions, even for security reasons, alters that architecture, he said. Once authority exists to freeze coins for protection, it exists for other justifications as well. Georgii Verbitskii, founder of crypto investor app TYMIO, raised a relevant concern: the network has no reliable way to determine which coins are lost and which are simply dormant. “Distinguishing between coins that are truly lost and coins that are simply dormant is practically impossible,” Verbitskii said. “From a protocol perspective, there is no reliable way to tell the difference.” For this camp, the solution lies in upgrading cryptography and enabling voluntary migration to quantum-resistant signatures, rather than rewriting ownership conditions at the protocol layer. Let the math decide Others argue that intervention would violate Bitcoin’s core principle: private keys control coins. Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, suggested that allowing old coins to reenter circulation, even if through quantum breakthroughs, may be preferable to altering consensus rules. "Any bitcoin in lost wallets, including Satoshi (if not alive), will be hacked and put back in circulation," he continued. "Any inflationary effect from lost coins returning to circulation would be temporary, the thinking goes, and the market would eventually absorb it.” Under this view, “code is law”: if cryptography evolves, coins move. Roya Mahboob, CEO and founder of Digital Citizen Fund, took a similar hardline stance. “No, freezing old Satoshi-era addresses would violate immutability and property rights,” she told CoinDesk. “Even coins from 2009 are protected by the same rules as coins mined today.” If quantum systems eventually crack exposed keys, she added, “whoever solves them first should claim the coins.” However, Mahboob said she expects upgrades driven by ongoing research among Bitcoin Core developers to strengthen the protocol before any serious threat materializes. The case for burning Jameson Lopp said that allowing quantum attackers to sweep vulnerable coins would amount to a massive redistribution of wealth to whoever first gains access to advanced quantum hardware. In his essay Against Allowing Quantum Recovery of Bitcoin, Lopp rejects the term “confiscation” when describing a defensive soft fork. “I don't think ‘confiscation’ is the most precise term to use,” Lopp wrote. “Rather, what we're really discussing would be better described as ‘burning’ rather than placing the funds out of reach of everyone.” Such a move would likely require a soft fork, rendering vulnerable outputs unspendable unless migrated to upgraded quantum-resistant addresses before a deadline — a change that would demand broad social consensus. Allowing quantum recovery, he adds, would reward technological supremacy rather than productive participation in the network. “Quantum miners don't trade anything,” Lopp wrote. “They are vampires feeding upon the system.” How close is the threat? While the philosophical debate intensifies, the technical timeline remains contested. Zeynep Koruturk, managing partner at Firgun Ventures, said the quantum community was “stunned” when recent research suggested fewer physical qubits than previously assumed may be required to break widely used encryption systems like RSA-2048. “If this can be proven in the lab and corroborated, the timeline for decrypting RSA-2048 could, in theory, be shortened to two to three years,” she said, noting that advances in large-scale fault-tolerant systems would eventually apply to elliptic curve cryptography as well. Others urge caution. Aerie Trouw, co-founder and CTO of XYO, believes “we’re still far enough away that there’s no practical reason to panic,” Frederic Fosco, co-founder of OP_NET, was more direct. Even if such a machine emerged, “you upgrade the cryptography. That’s it. This isn’t a philosophical dilemma: it’s an engineering problem with a known solution.” In the end, the question is about governance, timing and philosophy — and whether the Bitcoin community can reach consensus before quantum computing becomes a real and present threat. Freezing vulnerable coins would challenge Bitcoin’s claim of immutability. Allowing them to be swept would challenge its commitment to fairness. Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin News btc quantum computing More For You SportFi’s next act: onchain markets built around match-day results By Jamie Crawley , AI Boost | Edited by Stephen Alpher 3 hours ago An area of blockchain-based finance focused on increasing fans' engagement with sports teams, SportFi uses tokens to grant access to privileges such as limited voting rights and exclusive rewards. What to know : SportFi is moving beyond fan polls and merch perks toward token designs that react to live match outcomes via smart contracts. The next phase looks less like “loyalty points” and more like a sentiment market with DeFi primitives, like lending, staking and structured products, built around sports assets. Longer term, tokenized revenues and minority-equity exposure could turn sports’ illiquid cash flows into on-chain instruments, if regulation allows. Read full story Latest Crypto News Bitcoin see-saws around $68,000, DOGE, ETH slide as tariff uncertainty weighs on risk assets 15 minutes ago XRP falls 4% as network sees biggest realized loss spike since 2022 39 minutes ago ProShares' stablecoin-ready ETF sees $17 billion debut, sparking speculation about Circle 1 hour ago SportFi’s next act: onchain markets built around match-day results 3 hours ago Mentioning 'bitcoin' or crypto on AI agent OpenClaw's Discord will get you banned 10 hours ago ‘Bitcoin to zero’ searches spike in the U.S., but the bottom signal is mixed 20 hours ago Top Stories Goldman Sachs, Franklin Templeton, and Nicki Minaj: Inside Trump’s surreal Mar-a-Lago crypto summit Feb 20, 2026 Blue Owl liquidity crisis has investors bracing for 2008-style fallout — it could mean bitcoin's next bull run Feb 21, 2026 Small investors are buying bitcoin. For a rally to succeed, the whales need to join in. Feb 21, 2026 Ethereum's Vitalik Buterin proposes AI 'stewards' to help reinvent DAO governance 20 hours ago How AI is helping retail traders exploit prediction market 'glitches' to make easy money Feb 21, 2026