Freezing BTC on legacy addresses (non QC-resistant) with BIP-361

[Abiky]

I've read about this new proposal from the Bitcoin Core development team, which aims to freeze Bitcoin stored on legacy addresses if they're not "upgraded" to a Quantum-Resistant address on-time. More info about that here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/bitcoin-developers-propose-quantum-plan

Does that mean long-term collectors of loaded physical Bitcoin collectibles (particularly, slabbed/graded coins) are at risk? Because such a move would force collectors to break the slabs just to redeem the Bitcoin inside the loaded collectible (like a Casascius for instance). Talk about inconvenience.

What do you think about this? Will it gain the approval of the community? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[philipma1957]

I've read about this new proposal from the Bitcoin Core development team, which aims to freeze Bitcoin stored on legacy addresses if they're not "upgraded" to a Quantum-Resistant address on-time. More info about that here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/bitcoin-developers-propose-quantum-plan

Does that mean long-term collectors of loaded physical Bitcoin collectibles (particularly, slabbed/graded coins) are at risk? Because such a move would force collectors to break the slabs just to redeem the Bitcoin inside the loaded collectible (like a Casascius for instance). Talk about inconvenience.

What do you think about this? Will it gain the approval of the community? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

It is interesting to see if old legacy coins and other legacy products will need peeling.


Not sure about it passing time will tell.

I do feel better about not having any rare older pieces that I will now need to dump.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

I've read about this new proposal from the Bitcoin Core development team, which aims to freeze Bitcoin stored on legacy addresses if they're not "upgraded" to a Quantum-Resistant address on-time. More info about that here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/bitcoin-developers-propose-quantum-plan

This one is a stupid Bitcoin Upgrade Proposal I have ever known as it is severely against the most important thing from Bitcoin blockchain: full control, no censorship, no fund freeze by anyone else rather than the coin owners. It's simply like it's your key, it's your coin, and nobody can freeze your coins.

Does that mean long-term collectors of loaded physical Bitcoin collectibles (particularly, slabbed/graded coins) are at risk? Because such a move would force collectors to break the slabs just to redeem the Bitcoin inside the loaded collectible (like a Casascius for instance). Talk about inconvenience.

If it is passed, it will affect many people, not only collectors.

Because people can have bitcoins stored in their very old wallets and they even don't know about this BIP so that they won't upgrade their wallet softwares and move their coins from old wallets (with Legacy format) to new wallets.

It can affect people who use nLock time for Bitcoin inheritance.

If this BIP is passed, Bitcoin will be no longer Bitcoin we have ever known and will become dangerous thing like stable coins.
Most Stablecoins Can Be Frozen, Even in Your Own Wallets.

Bitcoin is better than altcoins and stablecoins so don't degrade it to something like stablecoins.

[nc50lc]

For clarification to some readers:
What they meant by "legacy" isn't limited to P2PK and P2PKH scriptPubkeys.
They mean the long/short range QC attack-vulnerable scripts that we're using now including SegWit and Taproot.
In short: legacy = non-QC-resistant

And additionally to those who don't want to read the full article, there's an under development contingency plan: "Phase C",
Which aims to include a way to spend those UTXO that's can't be spend after Phase B.

I can't comment on this since the BIP is still incomplete.
But depending on how they implement Phase C, this could turn into one the best or worst anti-QC proposal.

[BitGoba]

I've read about this new proposal from the Bitcoin Core development team, which aims to freeze Bitcoin stored on legacy addresses if they're not "upgraded" to a Quantum-Resistant address on-time. More info about that here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/bitcoin-developers-propose-quantum-plan

Does that mean long-term collectors of loaded physical Bitcoin collectibles (particularly, slabbed/graded coins) are at risk? Because such a move would force collectors to break the slabs just to redeem the Bitcoin inside the loaded collectible (like a Casascius for instance). Talk about inconvenience.

What do you think about this? Will it gain the approval of the community? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I think the word “freeze” is the wrong one. Nobody’s money will be frozen. I haven’t looked at the proposal, but the most realistic approach would probably be to give everyone  15 years to move to quantum-resistant addresses.After that period, any Bitcoin that remains on older addresses would no longer be usable.

An alternative would be to keep it accessible, allowing anyone to move it in 30 or 50 years once it becomes possible to unlock it with quantum technology. That would be similar to today, when someone discovers an old shipwreck that was carrying 100 tons of gold at the bottom of the ocean.

Since we are still early and Bitcoin is at the beginning of its monetization process, this second option could cause significant market disruptions.

[nc50lc]

I haven’t looked at the proposal, but the most realistic approach would probably be to give everyone  15 years to move to quantum-resistant addresses.After that period, any Bitcoin that remains on older addresses would no longer be usable.

The summarized specification is rather short, read this part of BIP361 to get a clearer picture (only nine short sentences)
Link: github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0361.mediawiki#specification

TL;DR: The specs suggests to give users an average of 3 years to migrate before moving to Phase B (ECDSA/Schnorr invalidation).

But take note that BIPs aren't guaranteed to be implemented, there are already a few QC-related proposals alongside this.
And this particular BIP isn't considered final.

[BitcoinMoses]

Some Bitcoin Core developers and few other Bitcoin community persons want to freeze Bitcoin Legacy addresses and it include 1.1 million Bitcoin belong to its creator Satoshi Nakamoto.  Is it correct to do it and do they have rights to do it ?

Short answer is - No, Bitcoin Core developers can’t unilaterally freeze addresses, and whether it’s “correct” is highly contested.

Let’s unpack both parts - authority and ethics.

Do developers have the power to freeze Bitcoin addresses ?

Bitcoin is designed around decentralization and the principle of consensus mechanism.

Bitcoin Core developers write and propose code, but they do not control the network.

Any change - like freezing certain “legacy” addresses (those starting with “1”)—would require:

  Miners to adopt it
  Node operators to upgrade their software
  The broader community to accept it

Without widespread agreement, the result would likely be a chain split (fork), essentially creating two versions of Bitcoin.

So, Developers don’t have the authority to impose this on their own
They can only propose it; the network decides.

Could Bitcoin addresses realistically be “frozen” ?

Technically, yes—but only via a protocol change.

That would mean altering Bitcoin’s rules so that certain coins (like those attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto, ~1.1 million BTC) become unspendable.

But this would be extremely controversial because it breaks a core property of Bitcoin:

Censorship resistance Immutability of ownership

Is it “correct” to do this ?

This is where opinions sharply diverge.

Arguments *for* freezing

* Those coins are likely lost or inaccessible
* Removing them could reduce uncertainty about future supply shocks
* Some argue it clarifies Bitcoin’s effective circulating supply

Arguments *against* freezing (more dominant in the community)

* Sets a dangerous precedent: if you can freeze one address,  you can freeze others
* Undermines trust in Bitcoin as neutral and permissionless
* Violates the principle that  code is law.
* Opens the door to political or regulatory interference

Many in the ecosystem view this as fundamentally incompatible with Bitcoin’s philosophy.

What about Satoshi’s coin specifically ?

The 1.1 million BTC attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto have never been moved.

* Some believe they’re lost forever
* Others think they’re intentionally untouched

Freezing them would be symbolic—but also risky in terms of precedent.

Bottom line:

Developers don’t have the right or ability to force this change alone.
* It would require broad consensus, which is extremely unlikely
* Ethically and philosophically, most of the Bitcoin community sees it as a bad idea.

Ultimately it is Satoshi Nakamoto will decide whether his Bitcoin needs to be transferred to a quantum resistant BTC wallet ?  Do not things Satoshi Nakamoto is not reading those articles published by few Bitcoin Core developers to put their hands on Satoshi’s reserve bitcoins. 

Satoshi Nakamoto knows all things Bitcoin and he will design a new quantum resistant Bitcoin Wallet and implement it under a broader consensus mechanism that will protect every Legacy addresses from quantum attack.