https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2026/04/15...-the-price
Anyone think quantum vulnerable wallets should be frozen?
It almost feels like a lost treasure at sea. Someday, someone will get it. I don’t think any wallet should be frozen, regardless of what happens in the future. It defeats the whole purpose of decentralization.
I understand the motivation, but I take a hard stance against freezing any bitcoin under any circumstances. It goes against everything that Bitcoin stands for.
I'm against freezing too. Let the treasure hunters claim their gold.
Apr 16, 2026 04:00 PM
(This post was last modified: Apr 16, 2026 04:00 PM by SUI-3183372.)
It's 2029, suddenly ALL of Satoshi's coins move to a quantum resistant address. No accompanying message is provided indicating who may be responsible for this move.
What do you do?
Apr 16, 2026 11:41 PM
(This post was last modified: Apr 16, 2026 11:43 PM by Mewtwo.)
(Apr 16, 2026 04:00 PM)SUI-3183372 Wrote: It's 2029, suddenly ALL of Satoshi's coins move to a quantum resistant address. No accompanying message is provided indicating who may be responsible for this move.
What do you do?
Well, technically he’s protected, since he mined the Bitcoins and never sent it via blockchain, so there’s no public key that’s revealed.
I still don’t agree with the concept. There’s so many folks who are locked out of their Bitcoin wallets. Just imagine the dude who still has hope for finding his HDD inside the massive trash landfill? The odds are super slim, but at least that hope is still there.
If quantum hacking does become a thing, I’m sure that hope will come true. It’s better recovering the Bitcoins that way and getting a fair share than getting nothing in return.
It’s also tricky in terms of legality. Would it be considered theft if they took his bitcoins and gave nothing? Since it’s considered part of their jurisdictions still. No big company would wanna risk that.
Anyways, to answer your question: if he truly loses access to his own Bitcoins, I really think Bitcoin lost its purpose of what it truly was developed for. I wouldn’t want to use it anymore if Satoshi is locked out. In terms of who will be the next king of crypto, that’s a question up in the air.
Interesting thread thank you for the read my G hope you have an amazing day
Apr 17, 2026 08:34 AM
(This post was last modified: Apr 17, 2026 08:35 AM by SUI-3183372.)
(Apr 16, 2026 11:41 PM)Mewtwo Wrote: Well, technically he’s protected, since he mined the Bitcoins and never sent it via blockchain, so there’s no public key that’s revealed.
I may be wrong here as it's a topic that I haven't thoroughly researched, but I'm under the impression that this popular claim that you're stating here is actually [mostly] incorrect.
It is true that there are some Satoshi wallets where the public key is not exposed, but the vast majority of the Satoshi wallets used the older "pay-to-public-key" (P2PK) format for mining most or all of the 1.1m BTC that we attribute to Satoshi. These keys are directly exposed on the blockchain, rather than being hashed, making them permanently public
AI Quote: The confusion in the broader discourse comes from conflating Satoshi's situation with the general Bitcoin population. Across all Bitcoin, only about 1.7-2M BTC sits in P2PK outputs (most of it from the 2009-2010 era), and another few million sit in reused P2PKH addresses where the key has been exposed through spending. But Satoshi specifically is heavily concentrated in the vulnerable P2PK bucket because of when he mined.
AI Quote: Why P2PK exposes the key
In Bitcoin's earliest format (P2PK), the output script literally contains the public key in the clear. Anyone can read it by inspecting the blockchain. This is different from the later P2PKH ("Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash") format, where only a hash of the public key appears on-chain until the coins are spent — the actual public key is only revealed at spending time.
A quantum computer running Shor's algorithm could, in theory, derive the private key from an exposed public key. For hashed addresses that have never been spent from, the public key is still hidden behind SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160, which Shor's doesn't break (Grover's algorithm offers only a quadratic speedup there, which isn't catastrophic).
So the relevant question for Satoshi's stash isn't "did he spend?" — it's "what output format did the coins land in?"
The breakdown of Satoshi's ~1.1M BTC
The most-cited analysis here is from Sergio Demian Lerner, who used a technique called the "Patoshi pattern" to identify blocks likely mined by a single entity (presumed to be Satoshi) in 2009-2010. That analysis attributes roughly 1.1 million BTC to Satoshi.
The critical thing: essentially all of the Patoshi-pattern coinbase rewards were paid to P2PK outputs, because that was the default output type in the earliest Bitcoin client. P2PKH wasn't introduced until later. So the overwhelming majority of Satoshi's mined BTC — on the order of 1 million+ coins — sits in P2PK outputs with publicly visible keys.
There's one well-known exception worth mentioning: the genesis block's 50 BTC reward is technically unspendable due to a quirk in how Satoshi coded it (the coinbase transaction wasn't added to the UTXO set). So that 50 BTC is in a different category — not quantum-exposed in a meaningful sense because it can't be spent by anyone, quantum or otherwise.
So how much is "safe" vs. "exposed"?
If we're talking strictly about Satoshi's presumed holdings:
- Quantum-exposed (P2PK): roughly ~1.1M BTC — essentially all of it
- Quantum-safe-ish (P2PKH, never spent): a negligible fraction, if any, of the Patoshi-attributed coins
(Apr 16, 2026 04:00 PM)SUI-3183372 Wrote: It's 2029, suddenly ALL of Satoshi's coins move to a quantum resistant address. No accompanying message is provided indicating who may be responsible for this move.
What do you do?
That would frighten me more. It would feel like a setup. I'd have to move my support towards Monero.
Apr 18, 2026 05:20 AM
(This post was last modified: Apr 18, 2026 05:26 AM by Mewtwo.)
(Apr 17, 2026 08:34 AM)SUI-3183372 Wrote: I may be wrong here as it's a topic that I haven't thoroughly researched, but I'm under the impression that this popular claim that you're stating here is actually [mostly] incorrect.
It is true that there are some Satoshi wallets where the public key is not exposed, but the vast majority of the Satoshi wallets used the older "pay-to-public-key" (P2PK) format for mining most or all of the 1.1m BTC that we attribute to Satoshi. These keys are directly exposed on the blockchain, rather than being hashed, making them permanently public
AI Quote: The confusion in the broader discourse comes from conflating Satoshi's situation with the general Bitcoin population. Across all Bitcoin, only about 1.7-2M BTC sits in P2PK outputs (most of it from the 2009-2010 era), and another few million sit in reused P2PKH addresses where the key has been exposed through spending. But Satoshi specifically is heavily concentrated in the vulnerable P2PK bucket because of when he mined.
AI Quote: Why P2PK exposes the key
In Bitcoin's earliest format (P2PK), the output script literally contains the public key in the clear. Anyone can read it by inspecting the blockchain. This is different from the later P2PKH ("Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash") format, where only a hash of the public key appears on-chain until the coins are spent — the actual public key is only revealed at spending time.
A quantum computer running Shor's algorithm could, in theory, derive the private key from an exposed public key. For hashed addresses that have never been spent from, the public key is still hidden behind SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160, which Shor's doesn't break (Grover's algorithm offers only a quadratic speedup there, which isn't catastrophic).
So the relevant question for Satoshi's stash isn't "did he spend?" — it's "what output format did the coins land in?"
The breakdown of Satoshi's ~1.1M BTC
The most-cited analysis here is from Sergio Demian Lerner, who used a technique called the "Patoshi pattern" to identify blocks likely mined by a single entity (presumed to be Satoshi) in 2009-2010. That analysis attributes roughly 1.1 million BTC to Satoshi.
The critical thing: essentially all of the Patoshi-pattern coinbase rewards were paid to P2PK outputs, because that was the default output type in the earliest Bitcoin client. P2PKH wasn't introduced until later. So the overwhelming majority of Satoshi's mined BTC — on the order of 1 million+ coins — sits in P2PK outputs with publicly visible keys.
There's one well-known exception worth mentioning: the genesis block's 50 BTC reward is technically unspendable due to a quirk in how Satoshi coded it (the coinbase transaction wasn't added to the UTXO set). So that 50 BTC is in a different category — not quantum-exposed in a meaningful sense because it can't be spent by anyone, quantum or otherwise.
So how much is "safe" vs. "exposed"?
If we're talking strictly about Satoshi's presumed holdings:
- Quantum-exposed (P2PK): roughly ~1.1M BTC — essentially all of it
- Quantum-safe-ish (P2PKH, never spent): a negligible fraction, if any, of the Patoshi-attributed coins
Interesting to know.
I wonder who will be the first to claim that. Could it be Google? The CIA? Someone very powerful is going to get this. Either the USA, China, Russia. Probably even North Korea. I wouldn’t be surprised if North Korea is building a quantum weapon against Bitcoin. They got the money and research to develop this somehow.
(Apr 17, 2026 12:25 PM)Omniscient Wrote: That would frighten me more. It would feel like a setup. I'd have to move my support towards Monero.
XMR is sadly vulnerable to the quantum attacks too.
AI Quote:
Short answer: No—Monero is not quantum resistant today.
⸻
🔐 Why Monero isn’t quantum-resistant
Monero relies on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) for:
Ring signatures (privacy)
Stealth addresses Transaction proofs
A sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could:
Derive private keys from public keys Break signatures and ownership
👉 That means Monero’s current cryptography would not hold up.
⸻
⚠️ Key difference vs Bitcoin
Compared to Bitcoin:
Monero: public keys are always involved in transactions Bitcoin: many coins sit behind hashed public keys until spent
👉 So in a future quantum scenario:
Monero could be more immediately exposed Bitcoin has a small “delay buffer” for some coins
⸻
🧠 Are they working on it?
Yes—but it’s still early-stage research.
The Monero community is exploring:
New designs like Seraphis / Jamtis Potential migration to post-quantum cryptography
But:
No quantum-resistant version is live yet Any upgrade would require a major protocol change
⸻
🧩 Bottom line
❌ Monero is not quantum resistant today ⚠️ It may be more exposed than Bitcoin if quantum arrives suddenly
🔄 It would need a future upgrade to stay secure
⸻
If you want, I can show you which coins are actually trying to be quantum-resistant right now—some are already built around that idea.
Monero at less risk than most others because addresses and balances are hidden. You wouldn't even know what to decrypt.
AI Quote: Short answer: yes, but not immediately—and not uniquely. Monero has quantum-related risks similar to most current cryptocurrencies, with a couple of nuances.
## 🧠 Where the risk comes from
Monero uses standard cryptographic primitives that are also used across crypto:
Elliptic-curve cryptography (ECC) (specifically Ed25519)
Ring signatures Stealth addresses
A sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor's algorithm could break ECC by deriving private keys from public keys.
## 🔍 How that applies to Monero specifically
### 1) Public keys exposure (good news)
Monero is actually more resistant than Bitcoin in one key way:
In Bitcoin, once you spend, your public key is exposed directly. In Monero:
Addresses are stealth (one-time addresses)
Real public keys are obfuscated inside ring signatures
👉 This reduces the attack surface.
### 2) But it’s not immune
If a quantum attacker can:
Break ECC Analyze ring signatures
Then they could:
Recover private keys Potentially trace or steal funds
So the underlying math is still vulnerable long-term.
## ⏳ Timeline reality
Current quantum computers are nowhere near breaking ECC at scale Estimates for real risk:
10–20+ years (very uncertain)
Possibly longer depending on breakthroughs
## 🛠️ Can Monero adapt?
Yes—this is where Monero has an advantage:
It’s actively developed and privacy-focused Could migrate to quantum-resistant cryptography, such as:
Lattice-based signatures
Hash-based signatures
This would likely require:
A protocol upgrade / hard fork Migration of funds to new address formats
## ⚠️ Important nuance
Even if quantum computers arrive:
Attackers must target specific exposed keys Monero’s design (stealth + ring signatures) buys time
But once ECC is broken, all ECC-based systems are at risk, not just Monero
## 📊 Bottom line
| Question | Answer |
| ---------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- |
| Is Monero quantum-proof? | ❌ No |
| Is it more resistant than Bitcoin today? | ✅ Slightly (due to stealth design) |
| Is it an immediate risk? | ❌ No |
| Can it upgrade later? | ✅ Yes |
## 📌 Simple takeaway
> Monero is not quantum-safe, but it’s not uniquely vulnerable—and its design may give it a bit more breathing room than some other cryptocurrencies.
If you want, I can break down exactly how a quantum attack would steal coins step-by-step (it’s actually pretty interesting and not as trivial as “flip a switch”).
And the cool thing is that once Monero updates to be Quantum Resistant, there is likely less worry about old addresses because of the privacy.
My concern would be whoever obtains the Satoshi coins steamrolling and manipulating all other networks.
|
