Charles Hoskinson Claims Bitcoin's Quantum Solution is a Hard Fork that Fails to Rescue Satoshi's Coins

In a recent video, Charles Hoskinson expressed concerns over Bitcoin's proposed defense against quantum attacks, suggesting it is both mislabeled and incapable of safeguarding the network's earliest coins, including those attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto. Hoskinson argues that the proposed solution, BIP-361, which aims to phase out quantum-vulnerable addresses, would require a hard fork due to its impact on existing signature schemes. He emphasizes the distinction between soft and hard forks, with the latter being a more fundamental change that could potentially split the network. The BIP-361 proposal suggests using zero-knowledge proofs tied to BIP-39 seed phrases for users to reclaim frozen funds. However, Hoskinson points out that this approach would not be effective for approximately 1.7 million Bitcoin generated before 2013, including those associated with Satoshi's early mining activities. These early coins were created 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 for migration. Jameson Lopp, co-author of BIP-361, has expressed his own reservations about the proposal, 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 critique extends beyond the technical aspects, highlighting Bitcoin's lack of formal on-chain governance as a major obstacle in resolving these tradeoffs through a structured process.