The potential freezing of dormant bitcoin, valued at approximately $440 billion, has sparked a heated debate among cryptocurrency experts. Proponents of the freeze argue that it would protect the tokens from the risks associated with quantum computing, while opponents claim that it would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the network's core value proposition.
According to Samuel 'Chad' Patt, founder of Op Net, freezing any coins, including those considered lost, would send a signal to the market that all 19.8 million BTC in circulation are conditionally owned, which could lead to instant sell-offs and a significant repricing. Jason Fernandes, a market analyst, agrees that a successful quantum attack would trigger a severe repricing, but believes that the threat of quantum computing poses an existential risk to the network, requiring a pragmatic approach. The debate follows the release of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 361, which contemplates phasing out bitcoin's current cryptographic signatures and potentially freezing assets that fail to migrate.
While some experts, such as Kent Halliburton, CEO of SazMining, believe that the intentions behind the proposal are good, they argue that freezing dormant coins would break the core promise of inviolable property rights and require a contentious hard fork. Others, like Khushboo Khullar, venture partner at Lightning Ventures, claim that freezing dormant coins is a deeply flawed approach that undermines the network's core principles of immutability, permissionlessness, and no central enforcement.
The bitcoin community remains divided on the issue, with some experts, such as Ken Kruger, founder of Moon Technologies, believing that the proposal is sensible, while others, like Mati Greenspan, argue that doing nothing is better than taking action that could compromise the network's core value proposition.