CZ said during an interview with Galaxy head of research Alex Thorn on the Galaxy Brains podcast that quantum computing is not an unsolvable problem for Bitcoin. In his view, the Bitcoin community can respond to the relevant risks by upgrading to quantum-resistant cryptography. The discussion, as he framed it, is not only about whether quantum computing creates a risk, but also about what should happen to old addresses that remain inactive after such an upgrade is completed.
A proposed transition period after a quantum-resistant upgrade
The central issue raised in the interview concerned the approximately 1 million BTC held by Satoshi Nakamoto. CZ said that “doing nothing” would not be an ideal approach. He suggested that if Bitcoin completes a future upgrade to quantum-resistant cryptography, the community could allow a transition period of 6 to 12 months. During that window, holders of affected addresses would have time to move their coins to addresses secured under the new cryptographic scheme.
Under CZ’s suggested approach, if the relevant addresses still show no transfers during that transition period, those addresses should be frozen in the new protocol and the associated BTC should be removed from circulation. He linked this proposal directly to the risk of quantum-based address cracking. Without action, he said, those coins could ultimately be obtained by the first person who uses quantum computing to break the relevant addresses, which he described as not being a reasonable method of distribution.
Community consensus remains the deciding factor
CZ also emphasized that the final handling of these coins should not be determined by any single individual. Instead, he said the Bitcoin community should decide through voting or other consensus mechanisms. His comments therefore present a possible framework for dealing with inactive addresses after a quantum-resistant protocol change, while leaving the actual rules to be debated and determined at the community level.
The remarks place quantum computing, quantum-resistant cryptographic upgrades, and the treatment of Satoshi-linked early Bitcoin addresses within the same policy and protocol discussion. The core question is whether coins tied to long-inactive addresses should continue to remain in circulation after Bitcoin enters a new cryptographic security framework, or whether the protocol should treat those addresses differently if they do not move during a defined transition period.