The potential freezing of dormant bitcoin, valued at $76,498.71, could trigger a rapid repricing and mark one of the worst trading days in the cryptocurrency's history since its launch in 2009, according to advocates. The debate surrounding the freezing of dormant tokens to protect against quantum computing threats has been ongoing among bitcoin developers and industry participants. Samuel 'Chad' Patt, founder of Op Net, stated that freezing any coins, including 'lost' ones, would set a precedent that all 19.8 million BTC in circulation are conditionally owned, which could lead to institutional risk desks reevaluating their investments. Jason Fernandes, a market analyst, agrees with Patt's repricing thesis but believes a successful quantum attack would have more severe consequences.
Mati Greenspan, a self-described maximalist and market analyst, thinks that if quantum computers crack early Bitcoin wallets, it would trigger the largest bug bounty in human history rather than a rollback or freeze. The discussion follows weeks of debate over how to respond to the potential threat quantum computing poses to the bitcoin network, particularly the estimated 5.6 million BTC held in dormant wallets. Jameson Lopp, a core Bitcoin developer, proposed freezing the dormant bitcoin, worth roughly $440 billion, to prevent potential theft by future quantum hackers. The proposal, Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 361 (BIP-361), aims to phase out bitcoin's current cryptographic signatures and potentially freeze assets that fail to migrate.
Patt warned that if this proposal proceeds, bitcoin's repricing would be instant and would be the worst single day in bitcoin's history, as the network would have proven its core value proposition is negotiable. Other maximalists, such as Kent Halliburton and Khushboo Khullar, believe that freezing dormant coins undermines Bitcoin's core principles of immutability, permissionlessness, and no central enforcement.
However, not all maximalists agree, and some, like Ken Kruger, think that Lopp's proposal is sensible and that tradeoffs may be necessary to address the quantum threat. Fernandes understands the concerns about precedent but believes that quantum risk is an existential threat to the system, and bitcoin could evolve to address this threat, just as it has in the past with upgrades like SegWit and Taproot. Ultimately, the majority of bitcoin holders are more interested in preserving capital than preserving a specific notion of what bitcoin is 'supposed to be.'