Cardano Founder Claims Bitcoin's Quantum Solution is a Hard Fork That Cannot Rescue Satoshi's Coins

Earlier this week, Bitcoin's core developers proposed a plan to freeze 8 million coins to protect against quantum attacks. However, according to Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson, this plan is still insufficient to safeguard coins belonging to Satoshi Nakamoto, the network's pseudonymous creator. Hoskinson expressed his concerns in a video posted on his YouTube channel, stating that Bitcoin's proposed defense against quantum computers is both technically incorrect and structurally incapable of protecting the network's oldest coins. He believes that BIP-361, the proposal to phase out quantum-vulnerable bitcoin addresses, is being misrepresented as a soft fork when it would actually require a hard fork, as it would invalidate existing signature schemes that users are currently relying on. Hoskinson emphasized that a hard fork is necessary to implement this change, which is a significant distinction given Bitcoin's historical opposition to hard forks. A hard fork would change the network's rules so fundamentally that old software would stop working entirely, and the network would split unless all users upgrade. In contrast, a soft fork would tighten the rules, allowing old software to continue working but without access to new features. The BIP-361 proposal suggests that users with frozen quantum-vulnerable funds could reclaim them by creating a zero-knowledge proof tied to their BIP-39 seed phrase. However, Hoskinson argues that this approach is insufficient to rescue approximately 1.7 million bitcoin that predate BIP-39's introduction 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 and would remain permanently frozen even if their original owners attempt to migrate. Jameson Lopp, the core developer who co-authored BIP-361, has expressed his reservations about the proposal, describing it as a rough idea for a contingency plan rather than a finalized specification. Hoskinson's criticism extends beyond the technical details, arguing that Bitcoin's lack of formal on-chain governance hinders the network's ability to resolve tradeoffs through a structured process, forcing contentious upgrades to be negotiated through developer mailing lists and social pressure.