If you really want to discuss a problem, just discuss it. It's okay if I'm wrong. But brother, what you said is full of loopholes: 1. "Address and public key are two different things" - yes, but this is actually the root of exposing risks. P2PK (Pay to Public Key): In the early days, the public key was directly written in scriptPubKey, and it was 100% exposed from the genesis block (without any cost). These are not 'hash addresses', but bare public key addresses. 2PKH/P2WPKH, etc.: The address is a public key hash, and the public key is hidden when not spent. But once spent, the public key will be exposed on the chain when signing. Afterwards, this UTXO becomes permanently quantum fragile. The ancient god has long been hashed "sounds like saying" nothing ", but ignores two types of real exposures: 1）. The P2PK that has not yet been converted (still accounting for the majority of early mining output). 2）. Transferred but reused addresses (exposed after spending) - this is the mainstream risk. We cannot use 'address=hash is secure' as a universal shield, ignoring the reality of being exposed after spending. 2. "There are not many block rewards for exposing the public key with full counting"—— This requires data estimation. You can't just come with your mouth open. On March 31, 2026, the Google Quantum AI white paper explicitly estimated: P2PK (Pay to Public Key) early addresses directly exposed public keys, locking over 1.7 million BTC. Based on the comprehensive analysis of all script types and address reuse, there are approximately 6.9 million BTC in quantum exposed state (accounting for about 32% of the total supply), with the majority of them being reused address exposed. Even according to the most conservative white paper, Dormant 2.3 million is not a small amount, let alone reusing addresses to further expand the exposure scale. This data is not a 'few block rewards'!