The great question of the encryption world: Will quantum computers decipher Bitcoin, and will Satoshi Nakamoto's BTC be "processed"?

In the world of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto's 1.096 million Bitcoins have never moved, as if they are the system's original "faith anchor"—symbolizing the purity of decentralization, as well as the creator's withdrawal and non-intervention. But now, a technological variable is pushing this pile of "sacred objects" to the forefront. It's not because it will or won't be used, but because it is almost "destined" to be cracked—only this time, the ones doing the cracking are not hackers, but quantum computers. This thunder is no longer a question of "whether it will explode," but rather "when it will explode."

Thus, a more sensitive and controversial question is brought to the spotlight: In the face of quantum threats, should we handle Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin? Taking action might avoid disaster; inaction might preserve faith. This debate does not tear at the code itself, but rather at the deep philosophical wound within the world of Decentralization: When protecting faith itself harms the real foundation of that faith—how should we choose?

Decentralization: An Unnegotiable Belief?

"Decentralization" in the context of Bitcoin has long transcended technical architecture and has gradually been revered as an unnegotiable belief. It was born from a rebellion against the centralized power of traditional financial systems: banks, clearinghouses, central banks, and other institutions monopolize the ultimate interpretation of the ledger, and property rights are granted conditionally.

The birth of Bitcoin is a radical attempt to dismantle this system from its roots. In Bitcoin, you do not need to apply, do not need authorization, and do not need an identity; anyone can initiate a transaction, and any node can verify its legitimacy; the ledger is driven by a proof-of-work mechanism, and once written, the history is immutable; there is no "administrator", no "backdoor", and no "exceptions". This structure gives rise to the three core principles of Bitcoin: immutability, censorship resistance, and permissionlessness.

These three principles are not a moral declaration written in a white paper for public circulation; they are encoded into the protocol, verified in execution, and upheld as consensus, ultimately being elevated into a spiritual lighthouse that resists power interference. Therefore, for many Bitcoin believers, decentralization is no longer merely an engineering mechanism, but a belief worth exchanging volatility for, a willingness to sacrifice convenience for freedom, and even a readiness to take risks for survival to protect it. They believe: a ledger not controlled by anyone is more trustworthy than a compromise world that anyone can understand. But the problem lies precisely here. Once you acknowledge that "certain situations are exceptions," such as freezing a high-risk address, modifying a historical record, or cooperating with a regulatory requirement, then the sanctity and inviolability of Bitcoin transforms from "absolute rules" into "consensus negotiation." In other words, decentralization is no longer a belief, but merely a "strategy."

The arrival of quantum computers is the first real test of this belief system. It is not challenging the technology, but challenging human hearts: when the system truly faces life and death, are you still willing to choose non-intervention? This is no longer about how nodes synchronize, but about whether humanity can still uphold the "untouchable" bottom line in times of crisis.

Quantum Computers: Triggering a Bitcoin Crisis of Faith?

The security of Bitcoin is rooted in one of the most solid foundations in the real world—cryptography. Bitcoin uses the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA). The security basis of this algorithm is the "Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm Problem", which means: given a public key, deriving the private key is almost impossible—at least, that is true on classical computers. However, quantum computing changes the game.

In 1994, mathematician Peter Shor proposed a quantum algorithm (Shor's algorithm) that can efficiently solve large number factorization and discrete logarithm problems on quantum computers. This means that once the number and stability of qubits reach a threshold, the current ECDSA security mechanism will be completely shattered. According to research by a joint team from MIT and Google, theoretically, it would take about 2330 stable logical qubits and millions of gate operations to crack a 256-bit Bitcoin address. A traditional computer would take billions of years to exhaustively search for the private key, while a quantum computer could theoretically crack it in just a few hours or even minutes.

This is not alarmist. As early as 2019, Google announced the achievement of "quantum supremacy." IBM, Intel, and Alibaba are also in the race along this quantum track. Conservative predictions suggest that by 2040, quantum computers with thousands of qubits will be on the market. By then, all systems in the crypto world that rely on existing asymmetric encryption algorithms—including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and even the entire internet's HTTPS encryption protocol—will face the risk of large-scale failure. This is no longer a question of "technological updates," but a challenge to an entire order.

Against this background, the risks faced by Bitcoin have officially transitioned from the distant "theoretical threat" to the "strategic defense phase." The most vulnerable and sensitive part of the system is that batch of early Bitcoins that have never moved—specifically, the addresses belonging to the well-known Patoshi blocks. The Patoshi blocks have mined approximately 1.096 million Bitcoins, which have never been moved since their inception and have no spending records, making them the most mysterious and sensitive "silent assets" in the Bitcoin world. Their security status directly relates to the symbolism of Bitcoin faith and the system's potential vulnerabilities. Compared to the quantum-resistant code upgrades achieved through soft and hard forks, these 1.096 million Satoshi Bitcoins are the true potential catalysts for community splits.

How to handle Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin will trigger value conflicts?

So, why are these Satoshi Bitcoin so dangerous? Because they use the very early Pay-to-PubKey (P2PK) script format, and their public keys have long been exposed in plain text on the blockchain. This means that an attacker can easily derive the private keys from the public keys, allowing them to directly transfer the assets. This type of attack is precisely what quantum computing excels at. According to on-chain tracking data, this batch of addresses holds approximately 1.096 million BTC in total. If these assets are compromised and sold off, the market will face an impact of over $120 billion, with unimaginable consequences.

Therefore, the discussion about whether to "pre-process" this batch of Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin is gradually shifting from a fringe topic to a reality that must be faced. A large discussion around whether the "Satoshi Nakamoto coin should be processed" is continuing to heat up within the community, and there are currently three main voices:

The first voice: "Do not touch" - The ledger of Bitcoin must never be tampered with. This is the oldest and most deeply rooted voice in the Bitcoin community. They argue that even if this batch of coins is truly stolen, truly crashes, or truly shakes confidence, the precedent of "human intervention in the ledger" must never be set. Because once you have intervened once, you will do it a second time, a third time. This is no longer a singular event, but the beginning of a "permission" - who defines what constitutes "reasonable intervention"? As Bitcoin Core developer Matt Corallo has publicly stated multiple times: once you have touched the ledger, it is no longer Bitcoin. They believe that the essence of Decentralization is that even if the system is about to explode, no one should be allowed to hit the pause button. This is a commitment to "let faith be greater than risk."

The second voice: "We need to take action, but it must be limited and extremely cautious." This faction does not act rashly, but they do not believe that "inaction" is sacred. They emphasize realism: "If we can prevent an impending nuclear-style crash through consensus, why not?" The specific proposals they put forward often include implementing locking mechanisms through soft forks, freezing not permanently but delaying activation, and a community-wide consensus voting mechanism. This approach sounds more rational and has precedents to follow. They stress that this is not a "centralized intervention," but a technical, system self-defense mechanism that has achieved broad consensus within the community.

Third voice: "Don't freeze, don't modify, don't negotiate - let it die a natural death." There is also a faction that argues: "We don't need to do anything." This is not giving up, but a kind of technical rationality. They believe that instead of creating ethical troubles, it is better to upgrade through agreement, guiding users to migrate to quantum-safe addresses, thereby allowing these high-risk old addresses to "naturally deactivate." The advantage of this approach is that it does not harm consensus, does not modify the ledger, and does not provoke controversy, but the cost is extremely slow and has no effect on Satoshi Nakamoto's batch of "naked coins."

Currently, there is no solution that can completely avoid controversy. Each path is a value sorting: do you care more about immutable rules or more about the safety of reality? This is no longer a problem that code can automatically solve. It is a trial of collective will of the community, an ultimate vote on "power and principles."

Value Conflict and the Future of Bitcoin

Every time Bitcoin faces a crisis, on the surface it seems to be a technical divergence of codes, parameters, or addresses, but essentially, it almost points to the same deep-seated issue: can we unify the definition of "what is Bitcoin" in our hearts? This time is no exception. You may think the community is debating whether to freeze Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin, whether to intervene to prevent theft, but what everyone is actually arguing about is something much harder to unify—the priority of value ranking.

Compared to the "block war" in 2017, the current divergence surrounding "whether to intervene in Satoshi Nakamoto's address" will only intensify. The previous debate was about "transaction efficiency," while this discussion focuses on "whether the ledger can be rewritten"; the past divergence was about "application positioning," and this time it tears apart the "boundaries of decentralization governance"; the previous controversy was about "how to create a better Bitcoin," while this one concerns "what can still be called Bitcoin."

Once you open the floodgate for "special circumstances," the dam of logic will start to collapse. If this disagreement about "whether to take action" cannot achieve an overwhelming consensus, the likely outcome is—another hard fork. Anyone, any organization, any mining pool that is willing to fork the source code, modify the rules, and launch a new blockchain can create another "Bitcoin." But if the core of this split is not the technical parameters, but the understanding of the "boundaries of governance rights," then this forked chain may not just be a temporary "test chain," but the beginning of a new "consensus."

Conclusion:

Quantum threats put Satoshi Nakamoto's 1.096 million Bitcoins in the spotlight, but this does not mean "doomsday countdown." Even if they are ultimately cracked, the most direct consequence would simply be a sudden supply shock—prices may fluctuate wildly, but it would not be enough to destroy the entire system. Bitcoin has already experienced the Mt.Gox collapse, 3AC liquidation, and the FTX disaster; every time it seemed like a "waterfall" moment, the market ultimately absorbed it, built a bottom, and reconstructed new highs. Quantum shocks are not an end, but a magnifying glass. They magnify panic, but also magnify confidence; they magnify technological fragility, but also magnify collective wisdom. In the end, Bitcoin will demonstrate to the world through practice: faith is not fragile, it just needs crises time and again to prove that it is worth protecting.