Author: Daii Source: mirror

This is not a rhetorical question, but an increasingly imminent reality proposition.

In the world of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto’s 1.096 million bitcoins have never moved, as if they are the original “anchor of faith” for this system – symbolizing the purity of decentralization, as well as the creator’s retreat and non-intervention.

But now, a technical variable is pushing this pile of “sacred objects” to the forefront.

It is not because it will or will not be used, but because it is almost “destined” to be cracked - only the ones doing it are not hackers, but quantum computers.

After my article “The Biggest Bomb of Bitcoin Has Yet to Explode - But This Might Be Your Biggest Opportunity” was published on Zhihu, there has been a consensus on this matter:

This thunder is no longer a question of “whether it will explode,” but rather a question of “when it will explode.”

A more sensitive and controversial issue has come to the spotlight:

Should we deal with Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin in the face of quantum threats?

• It moved, perhaps to avoid disaster;
• If you don’t move, you may be able to keep your faith.

This debate does not tear apart the code itself, but rather the philosophical wound that lies deep within the world of decentralization:

When protecting faith itself harms the real foundation of that faith - how should we choose?

Before discussing such profound questions, let’s first review: how did decentralization become a belief?

1. Decentralization, a belief?

“Decentralization” is not a new term, but in the context of Bitcoin, it has long transcended technical architecture and has gradually been revered as an unnegotiable belief.

To understand the power of this belief, one must first understand its “opposite” - the deep structure of the centralized world.

In the traditional financial system, institutions like banks, clearinghouses, and central banks monopolize the final interpretation of the ledger. Whether an account is frozen, whether a transaction is valid, and whether a person is ‘trustworthy’ has never been determined by yourself, but rather by the ‘power structure’ behind the system.

This structure appears to be order on the surface, but in reality, it is a conditional grant of property rights: what you possess is not your “right”, but rather a “qualification” that they allow you to use temporarily.

The birth of Bitcoin is a radical attempt to dismantle this system from its source.

In Bitcoin:

• You don’t need to apply, you don’t need authorization, you don’t need identity;
• Anyone can initiate a transaction, and any node can verify its legitimacy;
• The ledger is driven by a proof-of-work mechanism, and once written, the history cannot be altered;
• No “admin”, no “backdoor”, no “exceptions”.

Decentralization, here, does not mean “many people maintaining together”, but rather that no one has the privilege to maintain it.

This structure has given rise to the three core principles of Bitcoin:

• Immutability: Once written to the ledger, it can never be changed;
• Censorship Resistance: No one can stop you from trading;
• Permissionless: Everyone inherently has the right to use it without approval.

These three principles are not a moral declaration written in a white paper for public circulation; they are encoded in the protocol, validated in operation, embraced as consensus, and ultimately elevated into a spiritual lighthouse that resists the intervention of power.

For many Bitcoin believers, decentralization is no longer just an engineering mechanism, but a belief worth exchanging volatility for, a willingness to give up convenience for freedom, and even a readiness to risk survival to protect.

They believe that:

A ledger that is not controlled by anyone is more trustworthy than a compromise world that anyone can understand.

But the problem is precisely here.

Because once you admit that “certain situations are exceptions,” such as freezing a high-risk address, modifying a piece of historical record, or cooperating with a regulatory requirement, then the sacred inviolability of Bitcoin shifts from an “absolute rule” to a “consensus negotiation.”

In other words, decentralization is no longer a belief, but just a “strategy”.

The arrival of quantum computers is the first real test of this belief system.

It is not challenging technology, but rather challenging the human heart: when the system truly faces life and death, would you still be willing to choose non-intervention?

This is no longer about how nodes synchronize, but about whether humanity can still uphold the “untouchable” bottom line in times of crisis.

2. Quantum computers, triggering a crisis of faith?

The belief in Bitcoin is not just as abstract as the word “consensus.” Its security is rooted in one of the most solid cornerstones of the real world - cryptography.

Bitcoin uses the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA). The security foundation of this algorithm is the “Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm Problem,” which is:

Given the public key, deriving the private key is nearly impossible to accomplish—at least, it is so on classical computers.

However, quantum computing has changed the game.

In 1994, mathematician Peter Shor proposed a quantum algorithm (Shor’s algorithm) that can efficiently solve large number factorization and discrete logarithm problems on a quantum computer. This means that once the number and stability of qubits reach a threshold, the existing ECDSA security mechanism will be completely dismantled.

According to research by a joint team from MIT and Google, cracking a 256-bit Bitcoin address would theoretically require about 2,330 stable logical quantum bits and millions of gate operations.

Traditional computers would require billions of years to exhaustively search for a private key, while quantum computers could theoretically crack it in a matter of hours or even minutes.

This is not alarmism. As early as 2019, Google announced the achievement of “quantum supremacy” — a 53-qubit quantum computer that completed a task that would take a supercomputer thousands of years to process. IBM, Intel, and Alibaba are also competing in this quantum race. Conservative predictions suggest that before 2040, quantum computers with thousands of qubits will be available.

By then, all systems in the crypto world that rely on existing asymmetric encryption algorithms— including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and even the entire HTTPS encryption protocol of the Internet— will face the risk of large-scale failures.

This is no longer a matter of “technical updates,” but a challenge to an entire order.

By the end of 2024:

• IBM announced that its latest quantum chip, Condor, has reached 1121 qubits. Although it is not fully fault-tolerant, it is close to the thousand-qubit threshold.
• The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States is urgently advancing the selection process for standards of “post-quantum cryptographic algorithms,” clearly stating that ECDSA will face “anticipated risks” in the next decade.

Against this backdrop, the risks faced by Bitcoin have officially transitioned from a distant “theoretical threat” to a “strategic defense phase.”

The most vulnerable and sensitive part of the system is the batch of early Bitcoins that have never been moved - specifically, the addresses belonging to the Patoshi block that we are familiar with.

The so-called Patoshi blocks refer to a series of blocks suspected to have been mined personally by Satoshi Nakamoto in the early days of Bitcoin, identified by blockchain analysis experts based on mining behavior patterns.

The characteristics of these blocks include: fixed time intervals, a highly consistent distribution of Nonce, and a unique growth pattern of “ExtraNonce”. Based on these on-chain traces, researchers speculate that the miner account controlling these blocks is very likely to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto himself.

A total of approximately 1.096 million bitcoins have been mined from the Patoshi block, which have never been moved or spent since their inception, becoming the most mysterious and sensitive “silent assets” in the world of Bitcoin. Their security status directly relates to the symbolism of Bitcoin faith and the potential vulnerabilities of the system.

Compared to the quantum-resistant code upgrades achieved through soft and hard forks, these 1,096,000 Satoshi Bitcoins are the real potential trigger for community splits.

3. How will handling Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin lead to value conflicts?

So, why are these Satoshi Nakamoto bitcoins so dangerous?

Because they use an early Pay-to-PubKey (P2PK) script format, their public keys have long been exposed in plain text on the chain. This means:

• An attacker can crack the private key through the public key, thereby directly transferring assets.
• This type of attack is exactly what quantum computing excels at.

According to on-chain tracking data, this batch of addresses holds approximately 1.096 million BTC in total. If these assets are breached and sold off, the market will face an impact of over 12 billion dollars, with disastrous consequences.

Therefore, the discussion about whether to “pre-process” this batch of Satoshi’s bitcoins is gradually shifting from a fringe topic to a reality that must be confronted. A major debate around whether Satoshi’s coins should be processed is heating up in the community, and currently, there are mainly three voices:

3.1 The first voice: “Do not touch” - The Bitcoin ledger must never be tampered with.

This is the oldest and most authentic voice in the Bitcoin community. They advocate that even if these coins are indeed stolen, truly crash the market, or genuinely shake confidence, we must absolutely not set a precedent for “human intervention in the ledger.”

Why? Because once you intervene once, you will intervene a second time, a third time. This is no longer a single event, but the beginning of a “permission”—who defines what constitutes “reasonable intervention”? Is it the Core developers? Is it the miners? Is it a certain country or court?

As Bitcoin Core developer Matt Corallo has publicly stated multiple times:

Once you have made a change to the ledger, it is no longer Bitcoin.

They believe that the meaning of decentralization is: even if the system is about to explode, no one should be able to press the pause button.

This is a kind of insistence that “faith is greater than risk.” But the problem lies here—if this is not a politically correct self-hypnosis, one must be psychologically prepared to “watch Bitcoin being hacked and looted.”

3.2 The second voice: “It should move, but it must be limited and extremely cautious.”

This faction does not easily take action, but they do not consider “inaction” to be sacred. They emphasize realism:

“If we can prevent an impending nuclear bomb-style sell-off through consensus, why not do it?”

The specific proposals they put forward often include the following elements:

1. Implement a locking mechanism through a soft fork, such as setting spendability restrictions only on certain specific P2PK addresses;
2. Freezing is not permanent, but a delayed activation: For example, if a 10-year cooling-off period is set, during this time, the token holder can “prove themselves” through post-quantum signatures to redeem.
3. Community consensus voting mechanism: decisions are not made by a specific team, but collectively decided by miners, nodes, developers, and users.

This path sounds more rational and has precedents to follow.

For example, BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) is a proposal tool that can be used to implement complex locking script structures. Although originally designed for batch payments and fee optimization, some developers have suggested that it can also be used to restrict the spending rights of specific UTXOs, thereby “freezing” certain addresses.

They emphasize that this is not a “centralized intervention,” but rather a technical, community-wide consensus-driven “system self-defense mechanism.”

But the problem is: even if the consensus is high, once the ledger can be modified, trust is no longer “automatic,” but rather “negotiated.”

3.3 The third voice: “Don’t freeze, don’t change, don’t negotiate – let it die naturally”

There is another school of thought: “We don’t need to do anything.”

This is not giving up, but rather a calmness of technicalism. They believe that instead of creating ethical troubles, it is better to upgrade the protocol and guide users to migrate to quantum-safe addresses, thereby allowing these high-risk old addresses to “naturally become inactive.”

What to do?

• Encourage users to migrate assets from old addresses to P2TR (Taproot) or future XMSS/LMS addresses that support post-quantum signatures.
• Induce “security upgrades” on-chain through economic incentive mechanisms (such as fee discounts);
• No addresses are frozen at the system level, but non-post-quantum signatures are also not recognized for control over certain critical paths.

The advantage of this method is that it does not harm consensus, does not alter the ledger, and does not provoke controversy, but the cost is extremely slow, and it has no effect on Satoshi Nakamoto’s batch of “naked coins”—because no one can “migrate” these coins at all.

In other words, this plan is responsible for the future, but powerless against “that bomb.”

3.4 Summary

Currently, there is no solution that can completely avoid controversy. Each path represents a value prioritization: do you care more about immutable rules, or do you care more about real-world safety?

Some say that Bitcoin is a temple, and the statue should not be moved out just because it is dangerous; others say that Bitcoin is a ship, and if you know there is explosive under the ship’s bottom, then it should be dealt with immediately.

But this time, it is no longer a problem that can be solved automatically by code. It is a test of the collective will of the community, an ultimate vote on “power and principles.”

And its real problem is:

Are we really ready to face a future where Bitcoin is not “immutable”, but rather “able to be moved but chooses not to move”?

It is clear that this is yet another conflict of values.

4. Values, non-negotiable?

Every time Bitcoin faces a crisis, it may seem to be a technical disagreement over code, parameters, or addresses, but essentially, it points to the same deep-seated issue:

Can our definition of “what is Bitcoin” still be unified in our hearts?

This time is no exception.

What you think the community is debating is whether to freeze Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin or whether to intervene to prevent theft; in fact, what everyone is arguing about is something much harder to unify—the priority of value ranking.

And this is not the first time Bitcoin has encountered such a “faith divide.”

Time back to 2017, Bitcoin was embroiled in a civil war due to “scalability” issues.

A faction advocates for maintaining a 1MB block size limit, emphasizing decentralization and node operability;

Another faction advocates increasing the block size and improving TPS, making Bitcoin more like a “global payment network.”

The debate ultimately ended in a hard fork, resulting in the creation of Bitcoin Cash (BCH). The trajectory of history is also very clear: BTC adheres to the bottom line of “simple ledger” and remains the highest-valued cryptocurrency in the world; while BCH, though not sunk, has always been outside the mainstream narrative.

What does this mean?

The technology of Bitcoin can be upgraded, and the path can be debated, but consensus cannot be easily torn apart. Once torn, the cost is not just “switching to another chain,” but rather a complete reconstruction of the entire belief system.

In contrast to the “blockchain debate” of 2017, the divergence surrounding “whether to intervene in Satoshi Nakamoto’s address” will only intensify.

• The previous debate was about “transaction efficiency”; this discussion is about “whether the ledger can be rewritten”.
• The disagreement was about “application positioning,” and what is being torn apart this time is the “boundaries of decentralized governance.”
• The focus of that controversy was “how to create a better Bitcoin,” whereas this time it concerns “what can still be called Bitcoin.”

Some voices supporting proactive intervention believe that it is time for Bitcoin to have a certain level of “governance flexibility” like Ethereum, and it can no longer be a “bystander system.” However, the criticisms from opponents are equally sharp:

“If we also start modifying history, freezing addresses, and filtering transactions, what essential difference is there between us and Ethereum?”

This is not an emotional accusation, but a wake-up call.

Once you open the floodgates for “special circumstances,” the dam of logic will begin to collapse:

• You can freeze Bitcoin;
• You may also freeze addresses that are sanctioned by the U.S. (such as Tornado Cash);
• Then you may set up a certain “trading whitelist” mechanism in conjunction with regulatory requirements…

The path we have taken is exactly the one that Bitcoin has refused to walk for fourteen years.

If this disagreement about whether to take action cannot reach an overwhelming consensus, the final outcome is likely to be — yet another hard fork.

Don’t misinterpret it; although the Bitcoin protocol is robust, it is not “indivisible.”

Any individual, organization, or mining pool that is willing to fork the source code, modify the rules, and launch a new blockchain can create “another Bitcoin.”

In the past decade, such attempts have been numerous, from Bitcoin XT to Bitcoin Gold, and then to Bitcoin SV, with the vast majority ultimately sinking without a trace.

But if the core of this split is not technical parameters, but rather the understanding of the “boundaries of governance rights,” then this forked chain is likely not just a temporary “test chain,” but the beginning of a different kind of “new consensus.”

By then, BTC may still be BTC, but it is no longer the “digital gold” that everyone could reach a minimum consensus on.

It could turn into two bitcoins:

• A guardian of the “clean ledger,” even if passively bombarded, refuses to exercise authority;
• A proposal for “rational intervention” that is willing to make limited modifications to history for the sake of system security.

And you, as a member of this system, will ultimately have to choose:

Do you believe in “rule above all”? Or “flexible survival”?

Conclusion

Quantum threats have brought Satoshi Nakamoto’s 1.096 million bitcoins into the spotlight, but that does not mean a “doomsday countdown.” Even if they are ultimately cracked, the most direct consequence would be a sudden supply shock—prices may fluctuate dramatically, but it would not be enough to destroy the entire system.

Bitcoin has already gone through the Mt. Gox collapse, the 3AC liquidation, and the FTX disaster. Each seemingly “waterfall” moment was ultimately absorbed by the market, building a bottom and reconstructing new highs. Newly added chips will eventually fall into the hands of long-term believers, while on-chain fees and computing power will be repriced amid severe fluctuations.

Quantum storms may stir up huge waves, but it is the resilience and direction of consensus that truly steers the voyage.

Quantum impact is not an end, but a magnifying glass.

It amplifies panic and also amplifies confidence; it magnifies technological fragility and also amplifies collective wisdom.

In the end, Bitcoin will tell the world through practice:

Faith is not fragile; it just needs one crisis after another to prove that it is worth protecting.