A leading core Bitcoin developer says he would rather see an estimated 5.6 million Bitcoins He believes that there is a greater risk of being frozen by the network than falling into the hands of future quantum hackers.
Jameson Lopp told CoinDesk that while he doesn’t want to freeze anyone’s Bitcoin, it may be safer for the network to remove dormant coins from potential circulation.
“At the moment, I don’t think any of this is necessary,” Lopp said in an interview, stressing that he was “thinking hostilely about potential threats in the future.” Still, he “would rather keep lost or dormant tokens away from attackers than have them flow into the hands of entities that may care less about the ecosystem.”
His comments come ahead of Tuesday’s release of BIP-361, a proposal by Lopp and others that explores phasing out Bitcoin’s current cryptographic signatures and, over time, invalidating transactions from quantum-fragile wallets and potentially freezing assets that cannot be migrated. At current prices, the dormant tokens Lopp mentioned are worth about $420 billion.
In a subsequent X post, Lopp said he “didn’t like” the proposal and hoped it would never need to be adopted, describing it as a “rough idea for a contingency plan” rather than a final specification. “I write this because I prefer the alternative,” he wrote, adding that in the face of existential threats, “personal financial incentives trump philosophical principles.”
This isn’t the first time Lopp has expressed his feelings about quantum recovery, saying it amounts to rewarding technological supremacy rather than productive participation in the network. “Quantum miners do not conduct any transactions,” Lopp wrote. “They are vampires who feed on the system.”
Millions of Bitcoins Could Be Lost Forever
About 28% of Bitcoin, or about 5.6 million coins, has remained untouched for more than a decade, Lopp said, adding that he and other analysts believe the coins may have been lost. Lopp added that if recovered through advances in quantum computing, this amount could bring huge swings and erode confidence in the original cryptographic network.
Although the proposal is still in its early stages, with no timetable set for passage, it has already sparked heated debate within the community.
Lopp sees the idea as a way to encourage or even push others to upgrade their wallets before any real threat emerges.
“I’m not trying to freeze anyone’s Bitcoin,” he said. “We believe there is a need to incentivize ecosystem upgrades because humans tend to be procrastinators.”
Any changes require consensus from the entire decentralized network. While there was no formal vote on the matter, similar upgrades in the past required overwhelming support from miners to launch.
Read more: To freeze or not to freeze: Satoshi Nakamoto and the $440 billion Bitcoin threatened by quantum computing
Huge risk of market panic
Lopp said the more significant risks include losing trust in the largest cryptocurrencies themselves. While suddenly dumping millions of Bitcoins on the market could trigger wild price swings, he said the greater danger lies in perception.
“It doesn’t even require a massive market dump,” Lopp said. “If there were any credible evidence that anyone had the ability to use quantum computers to recover lost or vulnerable coins, you should immediately expect massive market panic.”
In this case, rational holders might exit the system until they are confident that the blockchain is protected from such threats, he said.
The result has been a growing divide within the community, pitted between Bitcoin’s long-standing commitment to immutable, censorship-resistant ownership and the need to protect the network from potential future shocks.
Departing from the principles of Bitcoin
Market analyst Marty Greenspan, founder of Quantum Economics, said the debate is more philosophical than technical.
“The path to quantum resistance is relatively clear,” he said. “The real question is how the Bitcoin community chooses to deal with vulnerable coins.”
In his view, freezing dormant Bitcoin accounts would mark a significant departure from Bitcoin’s core principles.
“On the one hand, freezing dormant or exposed coins removes major tail risks and protects market confidence,” Greenspan said. “On the other hand, it sets a precedent for intervention that many believe is more dangerous than the threat itself.”
Greenspan explained that even without a massive sell-off, an apparent quantum attack on dormant wallets could trigger panic across the market.
Others argue that freezing dormant Bitcoin accounts could undermine Bitcoin’s fundamental safeguards.
“Ownership becomes conditional. Having the key no longer guarantees you can spend money,” said Leo Fan, founder of Cysic and former head of quantum resilience at Algorand. “This undermines Bitcoin’s promise of being an ‘unstoppable currency.’”
While he disagreed with freezing accounts, Fan noted that removing millions of Bitcoins from circulation could tighten supply, potentially increasing their value.