What the BIP-361 bitcoin quantum proposal tries to do

The idea is simple to state and hard to execute. The network would flag older signature schemes that quantum computers could crack first. It would then:

The goal is to save as much as 34% of Bitcoin’s supply. That is more than 7 million BTC—hundreds of billions of dollars—by moving them to quantum-resistant addresses. The “block, freeze, recover” rhythm creates time pressure. It nudges silent holders to act before an attacker does. In theory, many sleeping wallets would wake up, sign a safe move, and keep value intact.

Why some coins may still be lost

Charles Hoskinson, the founder of Cardano and a co-founder of Ethereum, says a large slice cannot be rescued. He argues that about 1.7 million coins from before 2013 will remain exposed. That pool likely includes at least 1.1 million BTC linked to Satoshi Nakamoto. His claim rests on how early coins were created and stored.

Before BIP-39 introduced seed phrases in 2013, many users relied on wallets and address types that reveal more information on-chain. Some early outputs use pay-to-pubkey scripts, which show a public key even before the first spend. If a quantum attacker can derive the private key from a visible public key, those funds become low-hanging fruit. Even if the network blocks new inflows and later freezes these coins, proving ownership without the old keys is not possible. If the keys are lost or the owner is gone, no recovery phase can conjure them back.

Supporters of the BIP-361 bitcoin quantum proposal accept that not every coin can be saved. Still, they see the plan as a way to secure most of what can still move. Hoskinson, while critical, also says it is not a bad plan—it is simply not a full cure.

How the phases work, in plain language

Phase 1: Stop the bleeding

The network would stop deposits into address types known to be weak against quantum attacks. This step makes sure the problem does not grow. If you keep sending BTC into a risky format, you increase what a future attacker can target. Blocking new inflows caps that exposure.

Phase 2: Freeze the sleepers

After a public deadline, coins that did not move to quantum-safe addresses would be frozen. Frozen does not mean destroyed. It means the network refuses to spend them under old rules. The freeze is designed to push owners to upgrade. It also limits the window where a quantum thief could strike as machines improve.

Phase 3: Late recovery

For users who missed the earlier windows, the proposal imagines a last-chance path to claim funds. This could involve special proofs or a migration process. Hoskinson’s critique targets this phase. If the original keys are lost, he says, no path can prove ownership. For very old outputs—and for coins that never moved at all—there may be no viable way back.

The quantum clock is ticking

“Q-Day” is the name many use for the moment quantum computers can break today’s crypto systems. No one knows the date. But the trend is clear. In March, Google urged a move to post-quantum cryptography by 2029 for its own systems. That does not mean Bitcoin will break in 2029. It does show that major firms see the need to upgrade soon.

Bitcoin uses elliptic curve cryptography to secure keys and signatures. Quantum algorithms, like Shor’s, could one day solve the math that keeps those keys safe. Addresses that reveal their public key before a spend will fail first. Addresses that reveal it only at spend time are safer for now—but only until they are used. Once the public key is on-chain, the race begins: can a thief compute the private key before you can move the funds again?

Community friction: ossification versus agility

The debate is not just technical. It is cultural. Bitcoin is proud of stability and careful change. Many call this “ossification,” meaning the base protocol should change slowly, if at all. Other chains, like Cardano, Polkadot, and Tezos, point to on-chain governance as a way to make big moves fast. Hoskinson argues that with on-chain governance, a complex migration would be easier to coordinate. Maximalists push back: slow change protects Bitcoin’s neutrality and security.

A plan like this needs consensus, code, review, and time. It affects users who may not be watching crypto news. It touches “lost coins” lore and the idea that unmoved BTC can rest forever. Freezing anything, even for safety, will draw strong views. That is why the discussion around the BIP-361 bitcoin quantum proposal is so intense.

Winners, losers, and unintended effects

Who benefits if it works

Who remains at risk

Possible side effects

What holders can do now

You do not need to wait for a hard deadline to reduce risk. Simple steps help today:

If BIP-361 or a similar plan goes live, you will need to act within posted windows. Do a dry run with a small amount first. Move larger balances only after you are confident.

Numbers that shape the debate

These figures are not destiny, but they anchor the stakes. Saving millions of coins matters to individual holders and to the market’s long-term trust.

Bitcoin is built to survive storms. The quantum storm is not here yet, but the clouds are on the horizon. The BIP-361 bitcoin quantum proposal is an attempt to prepare the levees before the rain. It may not save every coin—especially silent, pre-2013 treasure—but it could protect a vast share of what can still move. Clear rules, early education, and simple tools will decide whether the plan, or any version of it, can work in practice. As the community debates trade-offs, one point is plain: doing nothing is also a choice, and it loads risk onto the future. If Q-Day comes, the network will either have moved first—or wished it had.

(Source: https://decrypt.co/364676/cardano-charles-hoskinson-bitcoin-quantum-debate)

For more news: Click Here

FAQ