Binance founder CZ has put one of Bitcoin's most sensitive questions back on the table. Speaking on the Galaxy Brains podcast on June 18, he said that if Bitcoin upgrades to quantum-resistant cryptography, coins sitting in legacy addresses could face a deadline to move. Any funds left behind after that period, including Satoshi Nakamoto's estimated 1.1 million BTC, could then be frozen at the protocol level.
CZ did not present the idea as a unilateral plan from himself or Binance. His outline was procedural: first, Bitcoin would need to adopt a quantum-safe cryptographic standard. After that, holders using old address formats would get a six- to twelve-month window to transfer their coins into the new format. Once that window closes, untouched balances could be locked by network rules, potentially through either a soft fork or a hard fork, depending on what the Bitcoin network agrees to.
Quantum computing is driving the discussion
The pressure behind the proposal is the possibility that cryptographically relevant quantum computers could eventually break the ECDSA signatures tied to older Bitcoin address types such as P2PK and P2PKH. In that scenario, long-dormant coins would no longer be just inactive holdings. They could become targets.
The concern extends well beyond Satoshi's wallets. The report says roughly 5 million to 7 million BTC remain in dormant or old-format addresses, equal to around one-third of Bitcoin's total supply. A successful quantum attack on even part of that stockpile could trigger market selling and damage confidence in the asset.
This line of thinking connects with other proposals already circulating among developers. The article points to BIP-361, floated in April 2026 by developers including Jameson Lopp, which calls for a phased sunset of legacy signature types.
Critics say a freeze would violate Bitcoin's core rules
Opposition has been immediate and loud. Many critics argue that freezing any address, even one that has sat untouched for years, cuts against Bitcoin's long-standing principles of immutability and censorship resistance. The phrase “not your keys, not your coins” has surfaced repeatedly in that response.
For detractors, the issue is precedent. If the network accepts freezing some addresses for security reasons, it raises the question of who gets protected and who gets excluded. Some of the criticism is also directed at CZ himself. Because he built Binance as a centralized exchange, opponents say the proposal reflects a centralized mindset being applied to a system designed to resist exactly that form of control.
Other technical paths remain on the table
Freezing legacy addresses is not the only approach under discussion. Some technical voices have suggested less invasive methods, including zero-knowledge proof recovery systems and provable address-control timestamps. The goal in both cases is to reduce quantum-related risk without altering Bitcoin's basic immutability promise.
Still, every option runs into the same barrier: consensus. Any meaningful change would require broad support across the Bitcoin network, and history suggests that is difficult to secure. The article points to the old block size wars as evidence of how disruptive these governance fights can become. If a forced migration were pushed without enough agreement, the risk of a chain split would be real.
One unresolved detail hangs over the entire debate. If Satoshi were to sign a message or move even a small portion of those coins, control would be proven immediately. That would change the argument over a freeze in an instant, while also reopening the mystery of an identity that has remained hidden for more than a decade.