A renewed debate has emerged in the Bitcoin community over what would happen if a quantum computer managed to hack Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin wallet and dump the coins on the market.
Debate over quantum threat
The discussion began after YouTuber Josh Otten posted a chart speculating that Bitcoin’s price could crash to $3.00 if a sufficiently powerful quantum computer compromised Satoshi’s 1 million BTC and sold them.
Willy Woo, a well-known long-term holder, responded:
“Many OGs would buy the flash crash. The Bitcoin network would survive; most coins are not immediately vulnerable.”
Woo noted that around 4 million BTC, including Satoshi’s, are stored in older pay-to-public-key (P2PK) addresses that reveal the full public key onchain, making them more exposed to potential quantum attacks.
Newer address formats do not have this vulnerability because they do not expose the public key unless the coins are spent, making them safer from quantum threats.
Vulnerability of old addresses
The risk arises because a sufficiently advanced quantum computer could theoretically derive private keys from exposed public keys.
However, only coins in addresses with known public keys, such as P2PK and reused addresses, would be at risk. For information on how many bitcoin are in existence and their distribution, see how many bitcoin.
Timeline for quantum risk
Adam Back, cypherpunk and co-founder of Blockstream, argued that Bitcoin is unlikely to face a quantum threat for at least 20-40 years.
He stated there is ample time to transition to post-quantum cryptography standards, which already exist.
Market analyst James Check added that users would likely migrate to quantum-resistant addresses before such a threat becomes real.
Market implications and consensus
While most experts agree the Bitcoin network would survive such a scenario, the market price could face extreme volatility.
Check warned that there is little chance the community would reach consensus to freeze Satoshi’s coins if a quantum hack did occur, suggesting any flash crash would be met by buyers rather than protocol changes.
