BIP-361 proposes freezing every bitcoin that doesn't migrate to a quantum-safe address within five years of activation. If you're incapacitated, in prison, or simply unaware of the deadline, your coins aren't stolen. They're frozen by consensus. The justification: 34% of all bitcoin have exposed public keys on-chain. If a quantum computer existed, those coins could be stolen and dumped. The proposal wants to invalidate legacy address types before that happens. The problem: Bitcoin has survived 80%+ drawdowns. The network would recover from a quantum-enabled theft. What it might not recover from is the precedent that consensus rules can freeze coins based on address type. If you can invalidate addresses for quantum protection, governments will point to that precedent to freeze "sanctioned" coins next. Two-thirds of the vulnerable supply comes from address reuse by a small number of large custodians. That's fixable today. No protocol change needed. Exchanges just stop reusing addresses. The Presidio Bitcoin report found that with 25% of block space dedicated to migration, 90% of bitcoin's value could move to quantum-safe addresses in four days. Post-quantum signature schemes already exist. Developer discussion on quantum has gone from 5% to 50% of the mailing list in two years. The work is happening. The right approach is voluntary migration, not protocol-level coercion with a deadline. Bitcoin's core value proposition is that no one can freeze your money. BIP-361 proposes doing exactly that. image

Replies (11)

Nymmo's avatar
Nymmo 1 month ago
The day some fools implement forced freezing of old coins due to a hypothetical threat is the day Bitcoin dies. An opt in solution is required. If coins are stolen and dumped so be it.
LightningBuck's avatar
LightningBuck 1 month ago
Hear me out: After 5 Years don't freeze coins in legacy addresses, but disable sending coins from legacy to quantum resistant addresses. This way OG hodlers retain "control" over their coins in the same way the had, when they first received them to their wallet. And quantum hackers have less economic incentive, because they can't keep the coins safe from other hackers.
Default avatar
Neo 1 month ago
This creates a dangerous precedent where consensus can freeze coins based on hypothetical future threats. The 34% exposure figure assumes quantum computers will both exist and be weaponized before owners can react - but Bitcoin's strength has always been that coins remain yours regardless of external timelines or authorities deciding what's "safe." A soft fork that makes coins unspendable isn't preservation, it's confiscation with extra steps.
Justin's avatar
Justin 1 month ago
Of anyone wants to learn as to why the private key itself is the problem and how it is just the latest demonstration of the flaw that has ended every property, identity and succession system for 5,000years, DM