According to foreign media, the founder of the coin-Ann, Zhao Chang Peng, suggested that, if quantum calculations were to be able to break the bitcoin encryption in the future, the name of Satoshi Nakamoto would have been about 1.1 million bitcoin or should have been frozen first. The idea was quickly a source of debate, not only on technical security, but also on whether Bitcoin could address such extremes without changing the core principles.
Where did the controversy come from?
Proponents argue that if the address in question remained intact for a long time and the quantum attack actually came, the worst case scenario would be for the bitcoins to be taken by hackers and even sold once. Opponents argue that freezing of the address amounts to reintroducing artificial authority in a system that emphasizes the non-licensing and decentrization.
Opponents fear precedent.
The investor Michael Terpin believed that it would touch a line that bitcoin never crossed. He also noted that it was not easy for the Bitcoin community to agree on this, and that the upgrading of SegWit had taken years, let alone freezing the addresses of the founders.
The bigger problem is quantum safety.
The developer Jameson Lopp argued that the discussion should focus not only on Satoshi's currency, but on how bitcoin entered the postquantitative age. He proposed a phased relocation to antiquant encryption, and hoped that exchanges, custodians, wallets and institutions would be upgraded according to schedule.
Matt Hougan, Chief Investment Officer of Bitwise, referred to another idea: to place the Bitcoin of Satoshi in a legal trust, which would be handled in the future when it was possible to prove attribution through historical electronic records. In his view, this would avoid philosophical controversy more than a “direct freeze” or “leave aside”.
The discussion remains theoretical.
At present, there is no network consensus on the discussions. Researchers are still moving forward with landable back-to-back quantum code programmes, while the eventual response of the Bitcoin network to such risks remains open.