Quantum Threat Discussion: Jameson Lopp proposes freezing Satoshi Nakamoto (and same-era) wallet addresses. This is **important** meta-discussion.

Coindesk article (paraphrases the situation): https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2025/07/16/bitcoin-devs-float-proposal-to-freeze-quantum-vulnerable-addresses-even-satoshi-nakamoto-s

Lopp's blog: https://blog.lopp.net/against-quantum-recovery-of-bitcoin/

I've been trying to tell people that conversations surrounding the Quantum threat are conversations that we need to get comfortable with having. If quantum computing is an actual threat to bitcoin, then it could produce a black swan event. It will get fixed, but the question then becomes "How much damage would be done?"

The proposal Lopp floats is as follows: Some wallet addresses (known as P2PK) will become quantum-vulnerable. These are first-generation bitcoin wallet addresses, including Satoshi's that all begin with "04." The proposal is to exclude these from sending transactions in the future by implementing a soft fork now. In this scenario, satoshi's coins are safe, but -here's the problem- anyone who may be storing their bitcoin on such legacy addresses are also excluded from conducting transactions on the bitcoin blockchain.

He goes over the moral and ethical perspective as well: "Should a quantum-supreme-entity be able to steal Satoshi's coins even if they have the intention to send them to a burner wallet address?" Please note I am paraphrasing and encourage you to read his blog. What about the guy who lost $600 million USD of bitcoin in that landfill? Is it ethical to recover his bitcoin via quantum computing?

Ultimately, I am glad to see that there is something of a proposal to fix the problem before it starts, but this binary fix sounds like it will inevitably harm some participants in the bitcoin ecosystem.

Discuss!

EDIT: For those of you who don't know, there are generally four different types of wallet addresses. Addreses that begin with 04 are "quantum vulnerable" and so too are P2TR. However, my (perhaps flawed, perhaps wrong) understanding is that a soft-fork later will make P2TR wallet addresses quantum-proof later down the road. Jameson Lopp proposes a completely different soft fork that excludes addresses that start with 04 from participating in transactions. So, in summary, two soft-forks would make bitcoin quantum-proof. The following is a table to help you determine whether or not your bitcoin wallet is quantum proof.: https://imgur.com/a/d70kiuB