Author: Claude, Depth TechFlow

Depth Introduction: Bitcoin developers Jameson Lopp and others officially submitted the BIP-361 proposal on April 14, planning to phase out ECDSA and Schnorr signatures in three stages, ultimately freezing all early wallets that have not migrated to quantum-resistant addresses.

The proposal involves about 1.7 million BTC in P2PK addresses (including about 1.1 million from Satoshi, valued at around 74 billion dollars), with about 34% of Bitcoin in the entire network facing quantum attack risks due to exposed public keys. The proposal was met with fierce criticism from the community, with detractors labeling it as "authoritarian confiscation," but Lopp responded that he would rather freeze 5.6 million dormant BTC than let them fall into the hands of quantum hackers.

Renowned cryptopunk and Casa CTO Jameson Lopp, along with five researchers, submitted a draft named BIP-361 to the bitcoin/bips repository on GitHub on April 14, formally titled "Post Quantum Migration and Legacy Signature Sunset." The core argument of this proposal is straightforward: before quantum computers can crack existing cryptographic algorithms, the network should proactively freeze all Bitcoin wallets that rely on old signature schemes.

According to CoinDesk, Lopp stated in an interview that he does not currently see an immediate need to implement these measures, but emphasized that he is "engaging in adversarial thinking about potential future threats." He further confessed on the X platform: "I know everyone dislikes this proposal. I don’t like it either. But I wrote it because I dislike another outcome even more."

Three-Phase "Sunset Plan": From Restriction to Freezing

BIP-361 builds on the BIP-360 released this February. BIP-360 proposed a new address format called P2MR (pay-to-Merkle-root), similar to the existing Taproot address but removes the key path vulnerable to quantum attacks, providing forward protection for new coins. BIP-361 aims to address the existing problem: as of March 1, 2026, over 34% of Bitcoin in the entire network has exposed public keys on-chain, a figure directly from the BIP-361 document itself.

The proposal designed three progressive phases:

Phase A takes effect approximately three years after activation, at which point the network will prohibit sending new BTC to old addresses, and all users should have migrated to quantum-resistant address types. Phase B takes effect five years after activation, at which point old ECDSA and Schnorr signatures will be completely abolished, and any Bitcoin remaining in fragile addresses will be effectively frozen. Phase C is an unfinished relief mechanism, envisioning the recovery of frozen funds for legitimate owners holding seed phrases through zero-knowledge proofs.

According to Live Bitcoin News, GitHub reviewer Conduition believes Phase C is "the most critical component of any confiscatory freeze proposal" and argues that in the absence of this mechanism, BIP-361 is incomplete.

The proposal authors described the freezing mechanism as a form of "upgraded private incentive": lost or frozen coins would only marginally increase the value of others' coins, while coins recovered from quantum attacks would devalue everyone's holdings.

5.6 Million Dormant BTC and Satoshi's 74 Billion Dollar Holdings

The reason this debate resonates is due to the massive scale involved.

According to Lopp's estimates, approximately 5.6 million Bitcoins (accounting for 28% of the total supply) have not moved for over ten years; he and other analysts believe that these coins are likely lost. At current prices, the value of these dormant tokens is about 420 billion dollars.

Most emblematic is Satoshi's holdings. According to Cointelegraph, approximately 1.7 million BTC are locked in early P2PK addresses, including about 1.1 million held by Satoshi, currently valued at about 74 billion dollars. The public keys of these addresses have long been exposed on-chain, and once the quantum computing capabilities reach a critical point, attackers can use Shor's algorithm to reverse-engineer the private keys from the public keys, directly controlling the funds.

Lopp warned in a CoinDesk interview that even without a massive sell-off, "as long as there is any credible evidence that someone has the ability to recover lost or fragile coins using a quantum computer, the market will immediately experience widespread panic."

On Polymarket, the odds for "Will Satoshi move any Bitcoin in 2026?" are currently about 9.3%, up from 4.5% at the beginning of the year, but the response to the release of BIP-361 has been muted, suggesting that the market still sees it as a governance discussion rather than an urgent catalyst.

Community's Fierce Backlash: "Steal Money to Prevent Being Stolen"

BIP-361 touches upon Bitcoin's deepest philosophical tenets: ownership should not come with conditions. As soon as the proposal was made public, criticism quickly surged.

Bitcoin Magazine editor Brian Trollz outright denied the proposal; TFTC founder Marty Bent called it "ridiculous"; Metaplanet's head of business development Phil Geiger satirized, "We must steal people's money to prevent their money from being stolen."

X platform user Cato the Elder's comments went viral: "This quantum proposal is highly authoritarian and confiscatory... There is no reasonable justification for forcing an upgrade and making old spending paths invalid. Upgrades should be 100% voluntary."

Cysic founder and former Algorand head of quantum resistance Leo Fan pointed out from a technical governance perspective: "Ownership has become conditional. Holding the keys no longer guarantees you can spend. This undermines Bitcoin's promise of 'unstoppable money.'" However, Fan also admitted that removing millions of Bitcoins from circulation could tighten supply, thereby driving up coin prices.

Discussions on Reddit's r/cryptocurrency were equally intense (the post received 631 upvotes, with 311 comments), with the top comment stating: "If you fork to freeze wallets to hedge investment risks, BTC is no longer BTC." Another user took a completely opposite stance: "Let them be hacked and let prices crash for a month. We’ll still buy the dip, just like we did when the last survival crisis occurred."