The potential freeze of dormant bitcoin, valued at $78,341.82, could lead to an immediate and drastic repricing, marking one of the most tumultuous trading days in the cryptocurrency's history since its inception in 2009, according to advocates. The debate surrounding the freeze 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, cautioned that freezing any coins, including 'lost' ones, sets a precedent that could impact the entire market, as institutional risk desks prioritize the precedent over the reason. A successful quantum attack, however, could trigger an even more severe repricing, as institutions would reassess the system's ability to survive a breach of its core assumptions.
Mati Greenspan, a self-described maximalist and market analyst, suggested that if quantum computers were to crack early Bitcoin wallets, it would not trigger a rollback or freeze but rather the largest bug bounty in human history. The estimated 5.6 million BTC, held in wallets that have been dormant for over a decade, are particularly vulnerable to quantum computing attacks. Jameson Lopp, a core Bitcoin developer and research analyst, proposed freezing the dormant bitcoin, worth approximately $440 billion, to prevent potential theft by future quantum hackers.
The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 361 (BIP-361) aims to phase out bitcoin's current cryptographic signatures, potentially freezing assets that fail to migrate. Patt warned that if this proposal proceeds, bitcoin's repricing would be instantaneous and potentially the worst single day in its history, as the network would have proven its core value proposition negotiable. Kent Halliburton, CEO and co-founder at SazMining, argued that defending Bitcoin by breaking its core promise of inviolable property rights is not a viable solution.
Khushboo Khullar, venture partner at Lightning Ventures and a bitcoin maximalist, stated that freezing dormant coins is a deeply flawed approach, as it undermines Bitcoin's core principles of immutability, permissionlessness, and no central enforcement. However, not all maximalists agree, with some believing that Lopp's proposal is sensible and that the quantum threat requires tradeoffs. Fernandes suggested that bitcoin could evolve to address the quantum risk, as it has in the past with upgrades like SegWit and Taproot, and that the risk of inaction far outweighs concerns about precedent or philosophical purity.
Ultimately, the majority of bitcoin holders prioritize preserving capital over preserving the cryptocurrency's core values.