That includes roughly 1 million bitcoin attributed to Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, and an estimated 5.6 million coins, Loppsays, have not moved in over a decade.

Back’s framing reads as the implicit alternative to BIP-361’s forced migration. He did not mention the Lopp proposal directly, but addressed the underlying question of whether Bitcoin’s developer community can respond quickly to a sudden quantum breakthrough.

“Bugs have been identified and fixed within hours. When something becomes urgent, it focuses attention and drives consensus,” he said, suggesting Bitcoin’s rough-consensus governance could handle an emergency without pre-scheduled freezes years in advance.

The two positions represent the core disagreement shaping Bitcoin’s quantum debate.

Back is betting that developers can coordinate quickly if the threat accelerates. Lopp is betting they cannot, and that a scheduled freeze is the only way to avoid a disorderly migration under pressure.

Google and Caltech researchers said last month that functional quantum computers capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography could arrive sooner than previously estimated, which is what moved the debate from theoretical to active.

Más para ti

(Unsplash)

BitMEX Research proposes a canary system that pays a bounty to the first quantum attacker and activates a network-wide freeze, offering an alternative to a fixed five-year timeline.

Lo que debes saber:

  • Bitcoin developers are weighing a BitMEX Research proposal for a “canary” system that would only restrict vulnerable older wallets if a quantum-capable attacker proves the threat on-chain.
  • The canary address would hold a bounty that only a quantum attacker could unlock, with any spend both triggering a retroactive freeze on…

About the Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories