Leading cryptographers are divided on the critical quantum issue facing Bitcoin. A panel assembled by Coinbase suggests that Bitcoin should proactively prepare for potential quantum attacks, yet refrains from taking a definitive stance on whether to freeze the millions of at-risk coins, many of which are associated with Satoshi Nakamoto.

— A Coinbase advisory panel featuring top cryptographers asserts that quantum computers do not currently pose a threat to Bitcoin but encourages the community to initiate technical preparations for post-quantum signatures without delay.

— Approximately 6.7 million bitcoins are deemed vulnerable to future quantum assaults, with about 1.7 million in early addresses likely associated with Satoshi Nakamoto and lost keys, igniting discussions about whether these coins should remain spendable.

— The panel refrains from endorsing any of the proposals aimed at freezing or restricting vulnerable coins, instead emphasizing that compatible solutions can be integrated and that users require clear communication and timely action from the Bitcoin community.

A Coinbase-formed advisory board comprising some of the world’s leading cryptographers has outlined recommendations for Bitcoin regarding the millions of coins that a future quantum computer could potentially seize, yet it has chosen not to answer the most challenging question.

The board, which shared its findings with Decryptnews earlier this week, includes Scott Aaronson from the University of Texas at Austin, Dan Boneh from Stanford, and Justin Drake from the Ethereum Foundation. Their primary position is that quantum computers do not pose an immediate threat to blockchains, and the timeline for when they might is uncertain, so the discussion should not be delayed.

The risk is concentrated in Bitcoin, with approximately 1.7 million bitcoins held in around 20,000 early pay-to-public-key addresses, a format that directly exposes the owner’s public key on the blockchain, making it susceptible to quantum attacks.

Many of these coins are believed to belong to Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto and others who have lost their keys, rendering them impossible to transfer to safety. An estimated 5 million more are vulnerable due to address reuse, according to Project11, a research group monitoring this issue, although most of these are thought to be active holdings in exchange wallets.

Implementing quantum-resistant signatures is straightforward, but the contention lies with the coins that remain untouched. One faction advocates for a strict deadline, after which the current signature schemes employed by Bitcoin, ECDSA and Schnorr, would no longer be accepted, and any coins that are not migrated would become unspendable. This side argues that keeping these coins active would provide a future attacker—potentially a sanctioned state like North Korea—with a significant stash of bitcoins capable of crashing the market and undermining the network’s legitimacy.

Conversely, the opposing faction considers this approach as confiscation, violating the absolute property rights on which Bitcoin was founded, and warns it could set a dangerous precedent for freezing coins under government duress in the future.

Amid these opposing views, several proposals have emerged that Decryptnews has been tracking over the past two months.

«While the council takes no position on the abandoned coins debate, that’s for the community to decide, they are direct about two things: Start the technical migration work now. The engineering work to support post-quantum signatures is independent of the governance debate and shouldn’t wait for it.»

Hourglass would limit how many vulnerable coins can be spent per block to avoid oversupply. BIP-361, proposed by developer Jameson Lopp and others, would enable migrated holders to verify ownership after the cutoff using a quantum-resistant proof that reveals no key. PACTs, from Paradigm’s Dan Robinson, would allow owners to timestamp a private claim now and transfer funds later without disclosing any information today.

The Coinbase board notes that these proposals are compatible and could be implemented in tandem.

However, the board will not take a stance. It states that there is no definitive answer and that the Bitcoin community must make the decision. It pledges to focus on two key aspects: that technical migration planning should commence immediately as it is separate from the abandoned-coins debate, and that holders require clarity to prevent the issue from escalating.

«While the council does not take a position on the debate over abandoned coins, which is for the community to determine, it is clear about two things: Begin the technical migration efforts now. The engineering work to support post-quantum signatures is independent of the governance debate and should not be postponed.»

«Communicate clearly. Users need to be assured that this issue is being addressed seriously. Ambiguity poses its own risks,» the board adds.

As proposals proliferate and the names associated with them grow increasingly significant, the universal message remains the same: action is required now, a directive that Bitcoin has yet to heed while Ethereum has spent years in preparation.