{"id":63966,"date":"2025-12-17T11:31:35","date_gmt":"2025-12-17T11:31:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/?p=63966"},"modified":"2025-12-17T11:31:35","modified_gmt":"2025-12-17T11:31:35","slug":"saylor-says-lost-bitcoin-may-need-to-be-frozen-as-quantum-risk-rises","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/?p=63966","title":{"rendered":"Saylor Says Lost Bitcoin May Need To Be Frozen As Quantum Risk Rises"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Michael Saylor tossed a compact bit of Bitcoin game theory onto X on Tuesday and it set off the predictable kind of fight: technical details colliding with ideology.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Bitcoin Quantum Leap: Quantum computing won\u2019t break Bitcoin\u2014it will harden it,\u201d Saylor wrote<\/a>, adding: \u201cThe network upgrades, active coins migrate, lost coins stay frozen. Security goes up. Supply comes down. Bitcoin grows stronger.\u201d<\/p>\n

Short version: if quantum ever becomes real enough to threaten today\u2019s signature schemes<\/a>, Bitcoin can upgrade. Coins that are actively managed move to new, quantum-resistant output types. Coins that aren\u2019t\u2014because the keys are lost, the owner is gone, or the UTXOs are simply abandoned\u2014should effectively get stuck.
\nFrozen.<\/p>\n

Bitcoin Developers And Community React<\/h2>\n

That\u2019s the part people latched onto, because it\u2019s not just a technical question. It\u2019s a social one. Who gets to decide which coins are \u201clost\u201d versus \u201cjust old\u201d? Jameson Lopp, one of the loudest voices pushing for practical quantum-readiness, basically said<\/a>: yes, and welcome aboard. \u201cI agree, lost coins should stay frozen. Glad to hear you\u2019ll support my BIP!\u201d<\/p>\n

Then the counterpunch arrived fast. \u201cWe have no right to freeze another man\u2019s bitcoin,\u201d wrote Wicked (@w_s_bitcoin), arguing any attempt to lock legacy coins could spark a contentious chain split. He also floated a more narrative-friendly twist: what if Satoshi left early keys exposed as a \u201cbounty\u201d for quantum computers?<\/p>\n

Lopp\u2019s answer wasn\u2019t sentimental. It was node-level realism. \u201cOn the flip side, every node runner has the right to refuse to accept coins they believe are most likely to have been stolen by a quantum attacker,\u201d he wrote, framing it less as confiscation and more as a defensive filter to preserve the integrity of circulating supply. Later, he conceded the uncomfortable core: \u201cCorrect, the best you can do is come up with an extremely lengthy migration window.\u201d<\/p>\n

That \u201cmigration window\u201d is doing a lot of work here. The draft proposal described by Lopp<\/a> and co-authors (Christian Papathanasiou, Ian Smith, Joe Ross, Steve Vaile, Pierre-Luc Dallaire-Demers) sketches a three-phase path: first a soft fork that nudges (or forces) new sends into proposed quantum-resistant outputs, then a later rule change that makes legacy ECDSA\/Schnorr spends<\/a> invalid after a long deadline, and an optional third phase to recover unmigrated coins if the rightful owner can prove control through some new mechanism.<\/p>\n

It sounds orderly on paper. It never is in practice. Because you can\u2019t prove theft in Bitcoin\u2019s older UTXOs. Wicked hammered that point: there\u2019s \u201cno way to prove whether older coins were stolen or just forgotten and then moved later by the rightful owner.\u201d The fear, in his view, is basically supply paranoia dressed up as security.<\/p>\n

Lopp didn\u2019t deny the incentives. He leaned into them. \u201cI can assure you that many entities in the industry care about supply shocks causing the value of their coins to plummet; businesses still use dollars as their unit of account.\u201d And then, in a line that reads like a homework assignment for anyone who thinks this ends cleanly: \u201cYour homework is to figure out the power dynamics\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

Outside the Bitcoin-only trench fight, other corners of crypto mostly reacted with a raised eyebrow. Nic Carter, a founding partner at Castle Island Ventures, demanded specifics: \u201cExplain in detail how all of those things will happen [\u2026] Which core devs has microstrategy funded to work on the multiple hard and soft forks that will be required for this plan? Which quantum researchers?\u201d<\/p>\n

BitMEX Research pushed back on the \u201chardfork\u201d framing. \u201cWhat makes you think we need a hardfork?\u201d it asked, arguing the transition could be painful without literally being a hard fork. Another account summed up the mood: \u201cYou can freeze coins with a soft fork.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then again\u2014soft fork or not\u2014getting broad social consensus to lock unmoved coins is its own nightmare. \u201cThe idea that there would be social consensus over locking unmoved coins is crazy,\u201d one user wrote. \u201cIn 1,000 realities that doesn\u2019t happen once.\u201d<\/p>\n

And, quietly, a reminder from Willem Schroe (Botanix CEO): \u201cYes, there are quantum developments but nothing remotely close to a breakthrough. That said, our current cryptographic solutions are not even remotely close to ready or battletested so quantum resistance work is definitely worth it. Very small risk but would have a big impact.\u201d<\/p>\n

So overall, none of this is about quantum tomorrow<\/a>. It\u2019s about Bitcoin deciding what it is when faced with a threat that can\u2019t be patched with vibes. The tech path is hard. The politics might be harder.<\/p>\n

At press time, Bitcoin traded at $86,761.<\/p>\n

\"Bitcoin<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Michael Saylor tossed a compact bit of Bitcoin game theory onto X on Tuesday and it set off the predictable kind of fight: technical details colliding with ideology. \u201cThe Bitcoin Quantum Leap: Quantum computing won\u2019t break Bitcoin\u2014it will harden it,\u201d Saylor wrote, adding: \u201cThe network upgrades, active coins migrate, lost coins stay frozen. Security goes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3,4,5],"class_list":["post-63966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","tag-crypto","tag-doge","tag-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=63966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=63966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=63966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=63966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}