Is Bitcoin Ready for Q-Day? CryptoQuant CEO Says the Real Bottleneck Isn’t Technical

Quantum computing has often been described as a future threat to Bitcoin’s cryptography. However, the real question is not whether quantum machines could eventually break it. The question is whether the Bitcoin network can reach consensus on what to do if that moment approaches.

A sufficiently powerful quantum computer would not just test Bitcoin’s encryption. It would test the community’s willingness to alter core assumptions about immutability, ownership, and neutrality.

CryptoQuant CEO Revives Debate on Freezing Satoshi’s Bitcoin

At the center of the debate lies a stark question: should vulnerable coins, including Satoshi’s estimated 1 million BTC, be frozen, or should Bitcoin remain strictly rule-based? CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju revived this discussion in a recent post.

“The hardest truth of Bitcoin quantum upgrade: It would likely require freezing Satoshi’s ~1M BTC, and millions more in old addresses,” he wrote.

Ju pointed to the scale of dormant Bitcoin as part of the concern. Roughly 3.4 million BTC have not moved in more than a decade, including about 1 million BTC widely attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto. 

At current market prices, that stash represents hundreds of billions of dollars. Ju stated that Bitcoin’s security model assumes that attacks remain economically unfeasible. 

However, if quantum computing were to make key extraction cheap and practical, that assumption would no longer hold. This, in turn, would create a powerful financial incentive for attackers to target exposed addresses.

Still, Ju emphasized that a key obstacle may not be technical but social. The executive added that reaching an agreement within the Bitcoin community has historically proven difficult, particularly when proposals appear to conflict with the network’s core principles. 

“The block size debate lasted 3+ years and caused hard forks. SegWit2x ultimately failed to gain sufficient community support. Freezing dormant coins would face similar resistance,” he remarked.

Ju warned that full agreement on how to handle a quantum threat may never materialize, increasing the possibility of competing Bitcoin forks as the technology advances. While cryptographic upgrades can be developed relatively quickly, achieving community-wide consensus is a slower and more uncertain process.

In his view, the central issue is not whether the so-called “Q-day” arrives in five or ten years, but whether Bitcoin can align socially before technological change forces its hand. Developers, he argued, are not the bottleneck. Consensus is.

“Would you support freezing dormant coins, including Satoshi’s, to save BTC from quantum attacks? Or is it against Bitcoin’s core ethos? If this alone already divides us, the quantum debate must start now,” the executive concluded.

The reaction within the community was swift. André Dragosch, European Head of Research at Bitwise, pushed back on the idea of enforcing protocol-level intervention, while some supported freezing the coins.

“I would say lose them – don’t enforce upgrades on anyone,” he said.

Previously, analyst Willy Woo suggested that Bitcoin would likely adopt quantum-resistant signatures. However, he argued that such a patch would not address the issue of the lost coins potentially re-entering circulation.

Woo estimated there is a 75% probability that lost coins would not be frozen through a protocol-level hard fork. If quantum breakthroughs were to make those wallets accessible, the recovered BTC could flow back into the market, effectively expanding the active supply and influencing valuation dynamics. 

He added that the market is already beginning to price in the possibility of previously lost coins returning to circulation.

Quantum Threat to Bitcoin Overblown? Analysts Say Real Risk Is Decades Away

Meanwhile, some analysts believe that quantum risks are distant. Bitcoin entrepreneur Ben Sigman argued that the “real threat isn’t a quantum computer” but rather the “fear of one.” He added that real quantum risks could be 30-50 years away.

“Here’s the actual math to crack Bitcoin’s ECDSA: • ~2,100 logical qubits • Up to 10,000 physical qubits PER logical qubit  • That’s potentially 21 million physical qubits  • Up to 40 MW of power – for one attack. Today’s best machines:  ~6,000 noisy, non-fault-tolerant qubits. Not even close,” he posted.

Others view Bitcoin’s vulnerability as part of a wider digital security issue. 

This split highlights the challenge facing Bitcoin stakeholders. Simultaneously, the market appears to be factoring in quantum-related supply risk.

As 2026 progresses, the Bitcoin community faces a complex decision, balancing technical readiness, market confidence, and Bitcoin’s core principles. Whether through voluntary upgrades, protocol freezes, or patient monitoring, the way forward will test Bitcoin’s adaptability and its social consensus model.