Freezing BTC on old addresses (non QC-resistant) with BIP-361

I came across this interesting proposal from the Bitcoin Core dev team. They want to freeze Bitcoin that's sitting on legacy addresses unless those addresses get upgraded to a Quantum-Resistant version in time. You can find more details about it here: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/news/bitcoin-developers-propose-quantum-plan So, does this put long-term collectors of physical Bitcoin items at risk? Especially for those who own graded or slabbed coins. It would mean collectors would have to break open those slabs just to access the Bitcoin inside, like with a Casascius coin. Super inconvenient, right? What are your thoughts? Do you think this will actually get community support? I'd love to hear what you all think. Thanks!

It is interesting to see if old legacy coins and other legacy products will need peeling. Not sure about it passing time will tell. I do feel better about not having any rare older pieces that I will now need to dump.

This one is a stupid Bitcoin Upgrade Proposal I have ever known as it is severely against the most important thing from Bitcoin blockchain: full control, no censorship, no fund freeze by anyone else rather than the coin owners. It's simply like it's your key, it's your coin, and nobody can freeze your coins. If it is passed, it will affect many people, not only collectors. Because people can have bitcoins stored in their very old wallets and they even don't know about this BIP so that they won't upgrade their wallet softwares and move their coins from old wallets (with Legacy format) to new wallets. It can affect people who use nLock time for Bitcoin inheritance. If this BIP is passed, Bitcoin will be no longer Bitcoin we have ever known and will become dangerous thing like stable coins. Most Stablecoins Can Be Frozen, Even in Your Own Wallets. Bitcoin is better than altcoins and stablecoins so don't degrade it to something like stablecoins.

For clarification to some readers: What they meant by "legacy" isn't limited to P2PK and P2PKH scriptPubkeys. They mean the long/short range QC attack-vulnerable scripts that we're using now including SegWit and Taproot. In short: legacy = non-QC-resistant And additionally to those who don't want to read the full article, there's an under development contingency plan: "Phase C", Which aims to include a way to spend those UTXO that's can't be spend after Phase B. I can't comment on this since the BIP is still incomplete. But depending on how they implement Phase C, this could turn into one the best or worst anti-QC proposal.

I think the word “freeze” is the wrong one. Nobody’s money will be frozen. I haven’t looked at the proposal, but the most realistic approach would probably be to give everyone  15 years to move to quantum-resistant addresses.After that period, any Bitcoin that remains on older addresses would no longer be usable. An alternative would be to keep it accessible, allowing anyone to move it in 30 or 50 years once it becomes possible to unlock it with quantum technology. That would be similar to today, when someone discovers an old shipwreck that was carrying 100 tons of gold at the bottom of the ocean. Since we are still early and Bitcoin is at the beginning of its monetization process, this second option could cause significant market disruptions.

The summarized specification is rather short, read this part of BIP361 to get a clearer picture (only nine short sentences) Link: github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0361.mediawiki#specification TL;DR: The specs suggests to give users an average of 3 years to migrate before moving to Phase B (ECDSA/Schnorr invalidation). But take note that BIPs aren't guaranteed to be implemented, there are already a few QC-related proposals alongside this. And this particular BIP isn't considered final.

Better to implement an additional layer of security on the Bitcoin system than this. A simple layer of security like a question no one can easily guess, with answer (that can only be known with zkp) hidden and stored on the Blockchain, could work really wel If the security layer is enabled, and a Bitcoin owner input his private keys, the question will be asked and the answer compared with the hidden answer on the Bitcoin system via zkp. This method will give Bitcoin owners the opportunity to enable the security feature before the qc that is very unlikely to be used against the network so soon or ever, is invented. In regards to private keys sealed on physical coins, I think keys are supposed to be duplicated, and one or more dublicates accessible to the owner rather than the difficult-to-access keys stored and hidden in one place.

I don't know but this feels like its AI generated. It doesn't look like something a normal human would type. The freezing in particular is quite a delicate area Though the intentions might be pure But it's like setting a precedence on censorship With the push for the greater Good.

I think this can be applied to PhaseC where users who didn't upgraded in time can be given a chance to spend their bitcoins And at the same time, preventing QC from spending those. Question is, how can they implement a zero-knowledge-proof where both of the claimants (owner and QC attackers) knows or can quickly calculate the private key. The article and this thread title's "Freezing" keyword is what makes the BIP sounds pro-censorship. But in reality, it's aiming to include a way to spend every invalidated UTXO spends through its 3rd phase. And in that regard, don't you think it's better to migrate to a QC-resistant signature and then make that "security layer" a way to spend "frozen" funds instead? Because it's what the BIP is aiming for. Unfortunately, PhaseC is under development and that's the most complicated part of it.

BIP 361 states that "As of March 1, 2026, over 34% of all bitcoin have revealed a public key on-chain; those UTXOs could be stolen by an attacker with a sufficiently powerful quantum computer." No one will ever agree to such restrictions. Bitcoin will likely die if such restrictions are imposed.

Exactly. It's all an attempt to censor Bitcoin. I get that developers want to protect BTC against Quantum Computing attacks. But freezing dormant or "inactive" addresses would strip away people's hard-earned coins from the Blockchain. This includes Satoshi Nakamoto's BTC holdings, and coins stored on loaded collectibles and cold-storage wallets. Those holding loaded Bitcoin collectibles in a graded slab, would be in jeopardy. If I'm not mistaken, BIP-361 would lead to a hard fork if implemented. Better "stick" with soft forks (backwards compatibility) for the good of the Bitcoin blockchain. Let's hope the community makes the right choice in the long run.

Phase A and Phase B would be soft forks so it can be implemented without consensus incompatibility with the old nodes. The new QC-resistant scriptPubkey however (just like SegWit) will work similar to how pre-SegWit nodes handle SegWit scripts. Phase C, on the other hand, needs to be a hard fork since implementing a way to spend the invalidated UTXOs needs a consensus change. (yeah, coins aren't totally frozen) Or maybe they'll come up with a lighter implementation that only requires a soft fork.

Yes I just read about this today and was happy to see that people are finally taking this seriously. I suggested doing exactly this a couple years ago, knowing that eventually once QC is far more advanced than today the ~2 million coins sitting in 2009/2010 or so wallets are gonna be stolen by QC actors. Sure it is controversial because it goes against a central idea of how Bitcoin operates (full backwards compatibility and nobody is required to upgrade), but QC is a unique threat that absolutely requires a fix, and freezing those old lost coins is absolutely needed as part of the QC-resistant upgrade that Bitcoin should undergo in the next decade. If ever Bitcoin is going to break a single time from a core principle, to safeguard the entire idea of Bitcoin, it is against the QC threat. As long as they give people at least several years to upgrade it should be alright. I don't think they should force everyone to upgrade through this freezing process though, only those ancient unmoved coins back in the original addresses, cuz as far as I have always understood it those are much much more in danger from QC attacks than any later address protocols because in those original addresses the public key is already exposed and from what I've read that is what will allow QC to readily break the encryption, as opposed to later addresses where you only expose the key when you spend (and after all everyone is supposed to not be re-using addresses). I have strong support for this BIP as I've been thinking for a couple years that they need this sort of update to future proof Bitcoin against QC. As long as they do it in a sensible way and that provides plenty of time for people it should be good. Hopefully this BIP can get passed in the next couple years.

Even without this proposal there may come a time where you will have to do this, because if these computers can one day derive the key in real time then it will be risky to make a transaction using those. Maybe we will find a way around this, but at this time we do not know as you say time will tell. Technically you are wrong about this, because you are contradicting yourself. If a big majority agrees to this that means they support it and then Bitcoin us unlikely to die in that particular case. But the situation is such that this will never reach any kind of majority because sacrificing the core principles of Bitcoin over a one-time hack event with limited implications is absolutely insane. I am against this. I am sure that those that support such radical ideas and those that want to see Bitcoin weakened will invest a lot of money in FUD campaigns to try to create wider support among users. This is completely incorrect and you do not know that, most people that are deciding what is better or worse are just making things up on the go. If we can consider this seriously, how could old coins coming back into circulation be much worse than sacrificing what Bitcoin is with a freeze? Once we freeze this once there is never going back to the Bitcoin that we have today. However if those coins get compromised and enter back into circulation this is negative development but then the issue will be solved once and for good. All it would do is create a negative market effect in the short-term after which Bitcoin would rebound and the QC situation would be resolved for good. That sounds much better than any kind of selective freezing. I don't think that more than a minority of people will support radical ideas like this. To throw away the principle of "your keys, your coins" and the censorship resistance of Bitcoin because you care about the short-term market price is absolutely crazy! This is something that only shitcoins do.. We all know what comes next after this kind of freeze, selective address blacklisting and freezing because the coin were involved with terrorism, child abuse or all sorts of things. Come on, there must be no compromise of this thing and no precedent. It should only happen if the question was between freezing or the Bitcoin protocol completely dying but that is not the case here.

Yeah I agree, freezing coins would set a bad precedent. Once that line is crossed, it goes against what Bitcoin stands for and opens the door to more control.

Technically, people must have their full control like if there is a BIP for upgrading Bitcoin protocol against Quantum computer threat, they are free to move their bitcoins to new BIP-based wallets and addresses. If anyone don't do that, let them free with their choices and risk of losing their bitcoins. It's not responsibility of Bitcoin blockchain or Bitcoin developers to centralized freeze those coins in old-BIP-based wallets. Things can be different technically I know, but can see with Segwit upgrade, people are free to move their coins from Legacy to Segwit or keep it in Legacy. I think it should be the same in the future even with Quantum computer threat and any BIP.

People fail to understand that there is no way to ever go back to the state that Bitcoin was before such a freeze. No amount of trying, lying, hoping, or anything can change that. You can see this in a more human example. Once a person has killed another person, let's say in a murder, they will never not be a murderer again. They can repent all they want, spend their time in jail, whatever but they will never be able to return to the state of a person who is not a murderer or who has not killed somebody. The same will happen here. We will tarnish Bitcoin forever over this one time issue that will never come back again, that is why it is ridiculous to propose such thing. It is better to let the price crash a lot in the short term than it is to sacrifice Bitcoin the way that it is now. And this is even under the assumption that these people are fully right about quantum computers. If they end up being completely wrong and for some reasons these computers are not able to do the cracking for a very long time, several decades or so then they would do a big blow to Bitcoin over nothing. Don't worry about that aspect, that part will definitely come. Basically what is guaranteed is that there will be new addresses that are quantum safe and you will be able to move your coins to that if you choose to. This will happen without this BIP anyway, and without anything controversial like how we introduced new address types over the years. The controversy will only be surrounding ideas about freezing old coins and stuff like that, but as long as only a minority of people are listening to those like J. Lopp on matters like this we should not have much issues. It will basically end up like Luke and his Knots, where only a minority believes their paranoia about spam and Bitcoin continues to do its own thing. Sure there will be a period of FUD like there is with this Knots stuff, but that is not an important issue we have all sorts of situations with FUD it comes like in waves.

Exactly. One of the key aspects of Bitcoin is freedom. But it seems developers are more interested in pleasing "Wall Street" than average individuals. They're blinded by greed more than anything else. I hope they do the right thing in the end, for the good of the project itself. Worse-case scenario, the community can simply "fork away" to continue with Bitcoin's legacy. That's the beauty of decentralization. Let developers migrate to a "QC-resistant" chain with censorship in mind, while the rest will carry along as usual with the original chain. The market will ultimately decide which coin will win and which one will be left behind in the dust. Just like in the "block size" wars era. BCH lost while BTC emerged victorious. We'll see what happens.

I once read that BIP 361 was created by Loop. But James Loop himself thinks this improvement is not very good. However, he also said that there is indeed no other way. Network development through HF or Soft Fork can be done, but doing all of that must be done carefully. This is to prevent network splits. Most people say the current condition is still too early for the arrival of quantum computers. So we probably don't need to be too afraid we just need to anticipate it with certain steps so that we don't incur losses. This locking process could also actually conflict with the principles of Bitcoin decentralization.

It's still a "draft" proposal, so it can be subject to change over time. At least, we don't have to worry about the threat of Quantum computing for decades. I don't get why the rush in making BTC QC-resistant. QC is still in its infancy. If it's a "threat" to Bitcoin, it can also be a threat to the banking sector, and even government systems. Everything depends on cryptography these days. Time will tell us whenever the community will go full-speed ahead with BIP-361 or not. We'll see what happens...