Charles Hoskinson Criticizes Bitcoin's Quantum Solution as a Hard Fork That Fails to 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 will not be able to save the coins belonging to Satoshi Nakamoto, the network's pseudonymous creator, as stated in a video posted on his YouTube channel. Hoskinson believes that the proposed defense against quantum computers, BIP-361, is technically incorrect and structurally incapable of protecting the network's oldest coins, including the approximately 1 million bitcoin attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto. He argues that the proposal, which aims to phase out quantum-vulnerable bitcoin addresses, is being mislabeled 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 stated, "To actually do this, you need a hard fork," emphasizing the distinction between soft and hard forks, which is crucial given Bitcoin's historical opposition to hard forks. The 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 will not be able 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, as these coins were generated using a different key derivation method. If the proposal passes in its current form, those coins would remain permanently frozen, regardless of whether their original owners attempt to migrate, due to the lack of cryptographic proof. Jameson Lopp, the core developer who co-authored BIP-361, has acknowledged that he does not like the proposal and hopes it never needs to be adopted, describing it as a rough idea for a contingency plan rather than a finalized specification. Hoskinson's critique 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.