Bitcoin is supposed to be a generational store of value. Quantum computing is one of the few credible threats to that premise. Not in the next year or two. Probably not even this decade. But if you are underwriting Bitcoin as something that should last for hundreds of years, then a 10 to 20 year threat is not far away. It is directly relevant.
There has been good work, especially from Nic Carter, on thinking through what quantum means for Bitcoin. Most of that discussion focuses on how Bitcoin upgrades. Post-quantum signatures, migration paths, and how long the ecosystem would have to respond.
And this is not just hypothetical work. My co-founder Dev is working directly on helping solve some of these problems for Zcash, and hopefully that work makes its way into Bitcoin. But it cannot wait until the quantum threat is right around the corner.
Because even if Bitcoin adopts quantum-resistant cryptography, that alone is not enough. Any user that has exposed their public key, by transacting even once, becomes vulnerable in a quantum setting. All of these users need to manually migrate by moving their BTC from old keys to new quantum-resistant ones. And if they do not move, their coins remain vulnerable. There is no automatic upgrade.
And so, we need to ship quantum-resistant cryptography well before it becomes an immediate threat because users need time to react. Personally, I believe Bitcoin will adapt to the quantum threat. It has to. I do hope it does before its too late.
But there is another specific part of this problem that I think is under-discussed. What about the users who cannot react? Lost keys. Forgotten wallets. Inaccessible funds. They will never migrate their Bitcoin to quantum-safe keys.
And while there are likely many such accounts like this, thereâs one in particular that is of notable interest.
Satoshiâs wallets hold roughly a million BTC, around 5% of total supply. They have never moved and are possibly inaccessible. The dude is probably dead. But once quantum computers can break Bitcoinâs cryptography, those coins are up for the taking.
In a post-quantum world, they become the largest honeypot in financial history.
The standard fear is straightforward. The first actor with a sufficiently powerful quantum computer breaks Bitcoinâs signature scheme, sweeps Satoshiâs coins, and dumps them on the market. Price collapses. Confidence breaks. Chaos.
But I want to address this concern.
That scenario sounds plausible if you assume the attacker behaves like a trader. However, I donât think that assumption makes sense.
The first entity to break Bitcoin with quantum computing is not going to be a random hacker.
It is far more likely to be a nation-state or a frontier tech company. Something operating at the scale of Google or Microsoft.
Those actors are not optimizing for short-term profit. They optimize for reputation, signaling, and strategic positioning.
Dumping Satoshiâs coins would be the fastest way to turn a historic technical achievement into reputational damage. It would also be strategically incoherent. If you are the first entity capable of breaking Bitcoin, you are not trying to extract a few tens of billions in liquidity. You are demonstrating a new class of power.
The first actor to break Bitcoin does not just gain coins. They set the norms for what wielding such a powerful technology means. This leads to a slightly uncomfortable conclusion. If a good actor is the first to break Bitcoinâs cryptography, it may actually be the responsible thing for them to move Satoshiâs coins.
Not to dump them but to secure them.
Call it theft if you want. But if the keys are recoverable and the owner is gone, it is better that they are moved into responsible hands than left for a malicious actor once quantum capabilities become more widespread.
Sweeping Satoshiâs coins safely becomes a signal to the world. A demonstration of technical achievement. A kind of modern-day millennium prize. I call this Proof of Break.
The cleanest, most undeniable way to demonstrate that you have broken Bitcoinâs underlying cryptography is to move the one set of coins everyone agrees should be untouchable.
What happens next matters. I see three likely scenarios:
Satoshiâs coins are just the beginning. There is a significant amount of BTC that will become vulnerable once quantum attacks are viable. Satoshiâs coins are simply the largest and most visible case. Hopefully, opening the discussion around Satoshiâs BTC can lead to a broader conversation about how we handle vulnerable Bitcoin more generally.
Either way, we should be pushing for user awareness and protocol-level changes sooner than later. So that fewer people are left exposed when the Proof of Break occurs.
The Proof of Break will not just test Bitcoinâs cryptography. It will test the values of those that achieve this historic feat.