Exploring Bitcoin’s oldest addresses, quantum computing, public-key cryptography, and the unanswered questions surrounding Satoshi Nakamoto’s untouched fortune.

More than 1.1 million Bitcoin have remained untouched since 2009.

They belong — at least according to overwhelming on-chain evidence — to Bitcoin’s anonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.

For over fifteen years, these coins have never moved.

Yet as quantum computing advances, an uncomfortable question is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore:

Could the largest dormant Bitcoin fortune in history eventually become vulnerable?

The answer is far more complicated than most headlines suggest.

1. Anatomy of a Myth: Why Satoshi’s Coins Are Called the “Weakest Link”

To understand this hypothesis, we must first look at the pessimistic scenario accepted by the majority of crypto experts.

• Address Type (P2PK): Satoshi’s early coins are not stored on familiar modern addresses (P2PKH or Bech32), but rather on the simplest P2PK (Pay-to-PubKey) format.
• The Problem: On these addresses, the user’s public key is exposed directly on the blockchain (it’s not a hashed key, but raw code).
• The Quantum Threat: Theoretically, a powerful future quantum computer utilizing Shor’s algorithm could mathematically derive the private key from an exposed public key in a reasonable amount of time.

This is why traditional consensus dictates that if a sufficiently powerful quantum machine ever emerges, Satoshi’s coins will be the first and most probable target for attack. They are massive, ancient, and feature exposed keys.

But what if we are underestimating the architect of the system?

2. The High-Entropy Hypothesis: Could Satoshi Have Used “Physical Chaos”?

This is where things get genuinely fascinating. In cryptography, entropy is the measure of true randomness.

• Low Entropy: When a key is generated using a standard pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) relying on system clocks, process times, or session IDs. Cracking such a key for a quantum computer is elementary.
• High Entropy: Randomness harvested from the physical world — hardware thermal noise, radioactive decay, atmospheric interference, or intentional erratic movements (a task fundamentally impossible for any quantum computer to crack, as such data sources possess a truly chaotic nature).

Imagine a simple example: what if we take an ordinary microphone and generate entropic data based on an acoustic source, say, the sound of raindrops hitting a wooden window frame during a storm? Think about it — how many such unique, unpredictable sources of entropy could be created? More than just one.

Why Might Satoshi Have Done This?

1. He was a perfectionist and a paranoid. The person (or group) who designed Bitcoin understood cryptography at an exceptionally high level. Relying on a standard, vulnerable random number generator to mint the most vital coins in the system would have been an unforgivable amateur mistake.
2. The Isolated Environment of 2009. In those early months, Satoshi worked alone. He had total freedom to experiment with manual key generation in an isolated environment, applying unorthodox physical sources of randomness.
3. The Clean Distribution. Early blockchain researchers note that the distribution of public keys in the genesis blocks looks remarkably uniform and “clean,” subtly hinting at superior code quality and high initial entropy.

3. How Bitcoin is Preparing for the Quantum Era

While the hypothesis of high entropy adds a layer of optimism, Bitcoin developers are not leaving things to chance. The cryptographic community is proactively engineering defensive mechanisms.

Long before truly dangerous quantum computers materialize, the Bitcoin community will almost certainly implement a soft fork to transition to post-quantum cryptographic algorithms (such as lattice-based signatures or other quantum-resistant schemes). This will allow users to safely “migrate” their funds from legacy addresses to modern ones without fearing mathematical decryption.

However, what happens to old, dormant addresses (including Satoshi’s coins), where no one is present to execute a manual migration? That remains an open protocol question that the community will have to resolve via consensus in the future.

Conclusion: Noise or Foundation?

Let’s step away from the opinions of famous social media voices and public figures for a moment, and ask ourselves one simple question:

Could a person who built such a high-tech blockchain, created the most high-performing project structure in history, and possessed some of the deepest knowledge in cryptography, have simply ignored or failed to account for the eventual emergence of supercomputers and AI applications? Of course not.

It is genuinely disheartening to see certain prominent figures making completely absurd public proposals like: “Let’s protect Satoshi’s Bitcoin assets by simply burning them, freezing them, or rewriting them via a fork.” They forget the core law of Bitcoin that must never be broken: no single coin can ever be changed, rewritten, or destroyed — neither through a fork nor through any other coercive mechanism. The right to private property here is absolute.

Those who propose such solutions are simply underestimating Satoshi. This person took care of their assets and the security of the system far better than critics can possibly imagine.

My hope is that these public figures finally begin genuinely researching the internal mechanisms of how Bitcoin works, understand what it was built for, and stop spreading panic, moving instead to discussing truly serious matters. The palace of the digital economy is built to last centuries.

https://www.youtube.com/@orlaresearcher

More detail: https://medium.com/@orlaresearcher/4d6c68fed6ee?source=friends_link&sk=f8292678c4a6a0185b58b9d72f62380e

---

Satoshi’s Lost Million: Are Bitcoin’s Oldest Coins Really Vulnerable to Quantum Computing? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Quantum Issue: Letter From The Editor

Quantum this, quantum that…who put a stupid cat on-chain!?

Ahem. 

Alright, let’s be serious. The threat that a viable, actually functioning, quantum computer would pose to Bitcoin if it were to be built is very serious. It is the concrete example of an existential threat, in every sense of the word. 

One of the bedrock foundations that Bitcoin rests upon is the assumption of a functioning cryptographic system that can be used to produce unforgeable signatures, i.e. that if you follow that system’s protocol properly when signing things, there is no way that anyone but a bitcoin’s rightful owner could produce a signature needed to spend it unless the rightful owner failed to secure their private key from theft. 

Quantum computers toss that right out the window. There goes the integrity of the entire mechanism that is used for owners of bitcoin to authenticate their ownership for the protocol to process their legitimately authorized transactions, and ONLY their legitimately authorized transactions. There’s no way for anyone to actually own anything in the context of the Bitcoin protocol if that assumption breaks. 

Bitcoin breaks if that assumption breaks. 

Thankfully, there are many different cryptographic systems that exist, and not all of them rest on assumptions that a quantum computer breaks. That’s the good news. The bad news is that its all a set of tradeoffs, none of them are ideal, and there are going to be some hard choices that have to be made. 

But there are solutions to just about every one of the problems that a viable quantum computer would create…except the problem of choosing which solutions to use. So in light of that, here is The Quantum Issue. 

This issue is a lot more structured than most past issues, and that is to ensure that it guides a reader through the entirety of the problem space and solution space without assuming any prior understanding (this is a very deep and technical subject). 

The first set of articles goes through the general issue of quantum computing itself, how it differs from classical computing, why that matters, how likely it is one is developed soon, etc.

The second set examines Bitcoin’s exposure. How is it exposed? How badly is it exposed? How can that degree of exposure change? 

The third set examines concrete (or developed enough to not be too hard to get to a concrete place) solutions to securing your bitcoin in a quantum safe way, and handling a network wide migration to those solutions. 

Don’t miss your chance to own The Quantum Issue — featuring articles written by many influential figures in the space working on the necessary pieces for a post-quantum Bitcoin!

This piece is the Letter from the Editor featured in the latest Print edition of Bitcoin Magazine, The Quantum Issue. We’re sharing it here as an early look at the ideas explored throughout the full issue.

This post The Quantum Issue: Letter From The Editor first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Shinobi.

Reference: GitHub

Bitcoin BIP-361 Draft Puts Quantum Security Back On The Agenda

Bitcoin developers have introduced BIP-361, a draft proposal designed to prepare the network for a future migration away from legacy signature schemes that could become vulnerable in a post-quantum environment.

The proposal, titled “Post Quantum Migration and Legacy Signature Sunset,” was authored by Jameson Lopp and others. It lays out a phased approach for moving Bitcoin users away from older cryptographic signature types and toward quantum-resistant alternatives.

This is not a panic signal. Quantum computers are not suddenly breaking Bitcoin tomorrow. But BIP-361 matters because Bitcoin moves slowly by design, and cryptographic migrations can take years to plan, debate, test, and adopt.

If the network ever needs to retire vulnerable signature schemes, the planning has to start long before the emergency arrives.

TL;DR

• BIP-361 proposes a phased migration away from legacy Bitcoin signatures.
• The goal is to prepare for possible quantum-computing threats.
• The proposal is a draft and has not been scheduled for activation.

Why Quantum Risk Matters For Bitcoin

Bitcoin relies on cryptographic signatures to prove ownership of coins.

Today, that system is secure against known practical attacks. But a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could threaten some widely used public-key cryptography. That is why researchers and developers across the technology sector have been preparing for post-quantum security.

For Bitcoin, the challenge is especially complicated.

A bank can update internal systems. A software company can push patches. Bitcoin is a decentralized network with users, wallets, miners, developers, exchanges, custodians, and old addresses spread across the world.

Changing cryptographic assumptions is not simple.

Coins sit in different address types. Some coins have not moved in years. Some users may no longer have access to their keys. Some wallets may be slow to upgrade. Exchanges and custodians need time to support new formats. Any migration plan has to balance security, usability, and social consensus.

That is why BIP-361 is important even though it is only a draft.

It starts mapping the problem.

What The Proposal Tries To Solve

BIP-361 focuses on a phased sunset for legacy signatures.

The idea is not to suddenly invalidate large parts of Bitcoin. Instead, the proposal looks at how the network might gradually move away from signature schemes that could become risky in a quantum future.

A phased approach matters because Bitcoin cannot afford chaos around address formats and wallet compatibility. Users need time to migrate. Infrastructure providers need time to support new tools. The ecosystem needs clear milestones.

That kind of transition would be one of the most sensitive upgrades Bitcoin has ever considered.

It would involve not just technical safety, but also fairness. What happens to coins in old address types? How long should users have to move? What about dormant wallets? What about coins believed to be lost? At what point does protecting the network outweigh preserving indefinite spendability from legacy formats?

Those are difficult questions.

BIP-361 does not make them easy, but it gives the community a structured starting point.

Bitcoin Is Slow For A Reason

Some people will see the proposal and ask why Bitcoin needs to discuss quantum security now.

The answer is that Bitcoin’s upgrade process is slow because it has to be.

A controversial protocol change can take years to reach consensus, and many never do. That can frustrate developers who want faster progress, but it is also part of why Bitcoin has remained stable. The network avoids rushed changes that could damage trust.

Quantum migration would require even more caution.

It touches the deepest layer of Bitcoin ownership: signatures. A mistake could be catastrophic. A rushed proposal could divide the community. A poorly communicated migration could leave users confused or exposed.

That is why early discussion is healthy.

The proposal does not mean activation is near. It does not mean quantum computers are already a practical threat to Bitcoin. It means some developers believe the community should begin preparing before the pressure becomes urgent.

That is a reasonable position for a system designed to last for decades.

The Market Should Not Overreact

For traders, BIP-361 should not be read as a short-term price event.

Bitcoin is not suddenly insecure because a quantum-migration proposal exists. In fact, the opposite reading may be more useful: serious networks plan for long-term threats before they become immediate crises.

The draft shows that Bitcoin’s developer community is thinking about future-proofing the protocol.

The market should also remember that draft proposals can change, stall, or fail to gain consensus. BIP status does not equal activation. A proposal must be reviewed, debated, implemented, tested, and accepted by a broad set of stakeholders before it becomes part of Bitcoin’s rules.

Still, the topic is worth watching.

Bitcoin’s long-term credibility depends on its ability to handle risks without compromising its core values. Quantum migration may eventually test that ability. The network will need to balance security upgrades with decentralization, user sovereignty, and conservative governance.

BIP-361 puts that conversation back on the table.

Not because Bitcoin is broken, but because Bitcoin is important enough that its hardest problems need to be discussed early.

This article is based on the BIP-361 draft in the Bitcoin BIPs repository.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

This report is based on information released by GitHub. at GitHub