Satoshi’s Bitcoin: A Quantum Coffin or Just a Rusty Safe?

by

Ah, the great Bitcoin drama! Charles Hoskinson, the Cardano sage, waves his hand and declares: BIP-361, thou art but a feeble bandage on the gaping wound of 1.7 million lost Bitcoins! Among them, the sacred hoard of Satoshi Nakamoto-1.1 million coins, trapped in the digital amber of pre-2013 addresses. A tragedy, or perhaps a comedy of errors?

Enter Jameson Lopp, the Casa co-founder, and his band of five merry co-authors, bearing the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP-361). Their quest? To slay the legacy ECDSA/Schnorr signatures, leaving those ancient addresses as barren as a Soviet breadline. But Hoskinson, ever the skeptic, cackles: “Thou fools! Thy zero-knowledge recovery is but a mirage in the desert of quantum threats!”

Quantum Boogeyman Looms Over Bitcoin’s Rusty Gates

Behold, over 34% of Bitcoin sits in addresses as vulnerable as a tsar’s promise. BIP-361, with its three-phase plan, aims to save the day. Phase A: No more sends to the doomed addresses. Phase B: Nodes reject transactions like a bouncer at an exclusive club. Phase C: Holders, prove thy worth with a zero-knowledge proof of a BIP-39 seed phrase-if thou canst.

But Hoskinson, with a dramatic flourish, proclaims: “1.7 million coins? Nay, they shall remain entombed! Satoshi’s hoard, a relic of a bygone era, predates thy modern standards. Thy ZK system is but a fancy lock on a door without a key!”

“1.7 million coins can’t do that. It’s not possible. 1.1 million of which belong to Satoshi.”

Watch the drama unfold on our YouTube channel, where leaders and journalists dissect the chaos with the precision of a Bolshevik critique.

Hoskinson, ever the historian, reminds us: These coins hail from Bitcoin’s infancy, when BIP-39 seed phrases were but a twinkle in a developer’s eye. Thus, they stand outside the grand assumptions of thy recovery systems, as useless as a tsar’s decree in a revolution.

“If you build a ZK system based upon proof of a statement, your BIP-39 key, say I have these things, you can recover some of the 8 million Bitcoin, but 1.7 million are not under this scheme. All of the 2013 Bitcoin and before,” he added, with a wink and a smirk.

Even BIP-361, in its humble draft, admits: “We cannot construct a proof of HD wallet ownership for UTXOs created before BIP-32 existed.” A fatal flaw, or a feature of Bitcoin’s unyielding nature?

“Phase C is also compatible with an ‘Hourglass’ style BIP for spending P2PK encumbered funds, provided such a BIP has activated by the time Phase C activates,” the draft reads, with all the clarity of a bureaucratic manifesto.

Hoskinson, ever the contrarian, scoffs at the soft-fork claim: “Nay, this is a hard fork, disguised as a gentle nudge!” The BIP-361 authors, in their infinite wisdom, concede: “Consensus rules may need to loosen. A hard fork, perhaps?”

“After Phase B, both senders and receivers will require upgraded wallets. Phase C, if activated in conjunction with Phase B, may be soft forkable, otherwise it would likely require a loosening of consensus rules (a hard fork) to allow vulnerable funds to be recovered,” they wrote, with the optimism of a utopian dreamer.

Lopp, ever the pragmatist, admits: “I know folks don’t like it. I don’t like it myself. But the alternative? Even less palatable.” A sentiment as bitter as a cup of cold borscht.

Follow us on X for the latest news, served fresh like a loaf of bread in a commune.

Thoughts on BIP-361:

I know folks don’t like it. I don’t like it myself. I wrote it because I like the alternative even less.

It isn’t a spec, nor is it proposed for activation. It’s a rough idea for a contingency plan that needs more R&D.

* I hope it never needs to be…

– Jameson Lopp (@lopp) April 15, 2026

Read More

2026-04-17 09:56