6 hours ago
6 hours ago

Protecting Bitcoin or seizing private property: What is behind Jameson Lopp proposal

Protecting Bitcoin or seizing private property: What is behind Jameson Lopp proposal Quantum panic: Why does Lopp want to lock 25% of all BTC?

​CTO of Casa Jameson Lopp, along with five other developers, has put forward a proposal that could reshape not only Bitcoin’s architecture but also the long-standing notion of untouchable legacy addresses. The idea: prohibit transactions from several outdated address types and effectively “freeze” a portion of Bitcoin’s supply stored on them. Among the affected funds could be as much as 25% of all BTC in circulation — including the 1 million bitcoins believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto.

The official goal of the initiative is to safeguard the network from potential quantum computing attacks. However, Lopp’s statement — “If you don’t upgrade your address, you’ll lose your money” — opens the door to a much deeper debate: does the community have the right to interfere with coins that haven’t moved for over a decade, even if their owners remain silent?

Code that doesn’t age well?

In his recent BIP draft, Lopp highlights that many early Bitcoin addresses — including P2PK and P2PKH formats — rely on cryptographic methods that could become vulnerable to quantum attacks in the future. These include the ECDSA digital signature algorithm, which secures private keys, and SHA-256, used for transaction validation.

Theoretically, a quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could derive a private key from a known public key — making it possible to unlock funds that have never been moved. That includes the legendary Satoshi wallets, whose addresses have been identified but remain untouched since 2010.According to research by Deloitte, around 25% of all BTC are held in addresses that could be compromised if quantum computing advances significantly. This concern is at the core of Lopp’s proposal: to restrict transactions to such addresses and gradually make coins on them unspendable over the next five years.

Security or interference?

The proposal frames the mechanism as a “private incentive” — essentially, if you don’t want to lose access to your coins, move them to a post-quantum secure address. But this logic assumes that the owner is still active on the network, has the necessary technical knowledge, and is willing to interact. In the case of lost wallets, that’s simply not possible. As a result, the proposed rules would amount to freezing someone else’s assets without their consent or involvement.

The situation is even more contentious when it comes to Satoshi Nakamoto. His estimated 1 million BTC have never been moved, but remain publicly visible thanks to traceable legacy addresses. At current prices, they’re worth over $118 billion — enough to place Bitcoin’s creator among the ten richest individuals on the planet. And it’s precisely these coins that the proposal seeks to “quarantine” for five years — without any evidence that their owner is even alive.

While framed as a security measure, this intervention raises fundamental questions about Bitcoin’s core principle: “Not your keys, not your coins.” If the private key hasn’t changed, but the community decides the funds are no longer spendable — can the system still claim to be truly decentralized?

Quantum panic — too soon?

Despite some alarmist forecasts, most experts agree that today’s quantum computers are nowhere near capable of breaking ECDSA or SHA-256. Current prototypes suffer from instability, limited computational power, and high error rates. The prevailing consensus suggests that it will take at least another decade before they pose a real threat.

Still, figures like Lopp argue that proactive preparation is essential. In May, he pointed out that quantum-resistant signature schemes tend to be much larger — a potential burden for blockchain scalability. He also emphasized that the public keys of legacy addresses are already exposed, which makes them inherently vulnerable.

Who stands to gain — and where does this lead?

While the BIP proposal is presented as a protective measure, its implications could reach far beyond technical safeguards. In effect, it gives the Bitcoin community the authority to decide which coins are “secure enough” to remain in circulation. This sets a potentially dangerous precedent: coins could be restricted or flagged without any breach or consensus violation — simply due to perceived future risk.

There’s also a market dimension to consider. If legacy coins are deemed unspendable, the circulating supply of BTC effectively shrinks. That could impact liquidity, price discovery, and long-term investor confidence. On the flip side, freezing dormant wallets — especially high-profile ones — may remove lingering uncertainty and reduce fears of sudden market dumps.

Post-quantum ethics

Bitcoin was designed as a network where nothing can be changed without the consent of every node. That’s why even the smallest protocol tweaks often take years of debate and coordination. But Lopp’s BIP isn’t just about a technical upgrade — it’s about redefining who gets to access a portion of the BTC supply. Even if driven by security concerns, this marks a shift toward centralized decision-making.

That’s why the real conversation isn’t just about cryptography, algorithms, or theoretical breakthroughs in quantum computing. The core question is: who gets to decide what counts as secure — and what doesn’t?

And more importantly: could this moment become the point of no return for the decentralized vision Satoshi once embodied?

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.