Charles Hoskinson Criticizes Bitcoin's Quantum Computing Fix, Claims It Won't Save Satoshi's Coins

Earlier this week, Bitcoin's core developers suggested freezing 8 million coins to protect against quantum attacks. However, Charles Hoskinson, the founder of Cardano, believes that this solution will not be able to save the coins belonging to the network's creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, as stated in a video posted on his YouTube channel. Hoskinson argues that the proposed defense against quantum computers, BIP-361, is both technically incorrect and structurally unable to protect the network's oldest coins, including the approximately 1 million bitcoin attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto. He claims that BIP-361, which aims to phase out quantum-vulnerable bitcoin addresses, is being misleadingly presented as a soft fork, when in reality it would require a hard fork, as it would invalidate existing signature schemes that users are currently relying on. Hoskinson emphasizes that the distinction between a soft fork and a hard fork is crucial, as Bitcoin's development culture has traditionally opposed hard forks, viewing them as a violation of the network's immutability. The BIP-361 proposal suggests that users with frozen quantum-vulnerable funds could recover them by creating a zero-knowledge proof tied to their BIP-39 seed phrase. However, Hoskinson argues that this approach will not be able to rescue the approximately 1.7 million bitcoin that predate the introduction of BIP-39 in 2013, including the roughly 1 million coins associated with Satoshi's early mining activity. These early coins were generated using a different key derivation method, which relied on a local key pool rather than a deterministic seed, making it impossible for their owners to provide the necessary cryptographic proof to recover them. If the proposal is adopted in its current form, these coins would remain permanently frozen, regardless of whether their original owners attempt to migrate. Jameson Lopp, the core developer who co-authored BIP-361, has acknowledged that he does not like the proposal and hopes it will never be adopted, describing it as a rough idea for a contingency plan rather than a finalized specification. Lopp argues that freezing dormant coins would be preferable to allowing a future quantum attacker to recover and dump them on the market. Hoskinson's criticism extends beyond the technical details, arguing that Bitcoin's lack of formal on-chain governance leaves the network unable to resolve these tradeoffs through a structured process, forcing contentious upgrades to be negotiated through developer mailing lists and social pressure.