Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao has suggested a controversial idea for Bitcoin’s long-term security: freezing old Bitcoin wallets that fail to migrate to quantum-resistant cryptography if quantum computers ever become powerful enough to break Bitcoin’s current encryption.
Speaking on a podcast with Alex Thorn, Zhao said quantum computing is not an immediate threat because quantum-resistant cryptographic systems already exist. However, he believes the real challenge will be getting the Bitcoin network to coordinate a transition when the time comes.
Under Zhao’s proposal, Bitcoin users would be given a migration period—possibly between six and twelve months—to move their coins from older addresses to new quantum-resistant wallets. After that deadline, any coins remaining in vulnerable addresses could be frozen and made unspendable under updated network rules.
The proposal could affect as many as 1 million BTC believed to be associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, along with other long-dormant wallets whose owners may no longer have access to their keys.
Zhao argued that allowing inactive wallets to remain vulnerable could eventually let quantum attackers seize those coins, effectively handing ownership to whoever first develops the technology to crack the addresses. In his view, that would be a less fair outcome than freezing the funds.
The idea has sparked debate within the Bitcoin community.
Supporters argue that freezing unmigrated coins could protect the network from a future quantum attack and prevent a sudden release of large amounts of Bitcoin into circulation. Some researchers have suggested that planning a migration path well in advance would reduce disruption if quantum computing advances unexpectedly.
Critics, however, say freezing dormant coins would violate one of Bitcoin’s core principles: property rights. They argue that ownership should remain tied to possession of private keys, regardless of how long coins have been inactive.
Alex Thorn is among those who oppose such measures. He has argued that altering ownership rules could undermine Bitcoin’s reputation as a neutral and immutable monetary system. Thorn also notes that the Bitcoin believed to belong to Satoshi is spread across thousands of addresses, making a large-scale attack more complicated than many assume.
For now, the discussion remains theoretical. Current quantum computers are not capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography, and any major protocol change would require broad agreement across the Bitcoin community. The debate highlights a growing focus on how Bitcoin and other blockchain networks may need to prepare for a post-quantum future while balancing security, decentralization, and property rights.
