Binance founder Changpeng Zhao has floated a controversial idea: freeze up to 1 million Bitcoin linked to Satoshi Nakamoto if those coins remain unmoved after a future switch to quantum-resistant cryptography. Speaking on the Galaxy Brains podcast on June 18, Zhao argued that quantum computing, while not an immediate threat, could eventually break Bitcoin’s current security. He believes the bigger challenge is coordinating a network-wide upgrade to quantum-resistant systems.
Zhao proposed a migration period of six to twelve months after implementing quantum-resistant cryptography. During this time, holders could transfer their coins to protected addresses. After the deadline, any remaining coins in legacy addresses should be frozen under the new protocol. He warned that leaving vulnerable addresses active could allow quantum-capable attackers to seize coins from defunct owners, creating an unfair redistribution of wealth.
Zhao emphasized that such a decision would require broad community consensus, not unilateral action. The proposal has sparked debate among Bitcoin developers and advocates, who remain divided over handling coins secured by older cryptographic standards. A recent Coinbase advisory board report urged Bitcoin to start preparing a migration path to post-quantum cryptography, suggesting a deadline for moving coins protected by ECDSA and Schnorr signatures. Supporters argue freezing unmigrated coins could prevent future attackers from acquiring large amounts of Bitcoin and destabilizing the market.
Critics, however, view freezing dormant coins as confiscation, conflicting with Bitcoin’s principles of immutability and user control. Galaxy Digital’s Alex Thorn, a vocal opponent, believes Satoshi’s coins should remain untouched regardless of technological advances. He argues that altering ownership rights could weaken Bitcoin’s credibility as a neutral monetary system. Thorn also noted that Satoshi’s stash is spread across 22,000 addresses, each containing about 50 BTC, making large-scale quantum attacks more difficult than assumed. He warned that some community members might prefer a severe market decline over protocol changes that override control of long-dormant wallets.