Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated Bitcoin stash is back at the center of the quantum-security debate after Galaxy Digital’s Alex Thorn argued that the market may be overstating the immediate risk to those dormant coins.
In a post after Bitcoin 2026 discussions in Las Vegas, Thorn said a rough consensus is forming around one key point: Satoshi-era coins should not be touched. “Satoshi’s coins (P2PK) should not be touched,” he wrote, warning that violating those property rights could damage Bitcoin’s core value proposition.
His argument adds nuance to a debate that has often been framed as a simple choice between freezing old coins or leaving them exposed. Thorn said the risk is “lower than many realize” because Satoshi’s holdings are spread across roughly 22,000 addresses, generally in 50 BTC blocks, instead of sitting in one giant target.
Why The 22,000-Address Detail Matters
The quantum threat to Bitcoin depends on exposed public keys. Galaxy’s Bitcoin quantum risk report separates two attack types: long-range attacks against coins whose public keys are already visible on-chain, and short-range attacks that would require deriving a private key during the brief window after a transaction is broadcast.
Early pay-to-public-key outputs, including many Satoshi-era coins, reveal the public key directly. That is why they are discussed more often in quantum-risk scenarios. Thorn’s point is that Satoshi’s coins are fragmented across many addresses, so an attacker would need to crack them individually rather than drain one single wallet.
That does not erase the long-term issue. It changes the scale and execution challenge. Active exchanges and large custodians may actually be more concentrated targets, but they can also migrate to post-quantum addresses if needed. Dormant coins cannot move unless their private keys still exist and their owners act.
The Hard Part Is Social, Not Only Technical
Bitcoin can eventually add post-quantum signature paths, but the harder question is what to do with coins that never migrate. Freezing Satoshi-era outputs would protect the market from a future theft scenario, but it would also rewrite the neutrality principle that makes Bitcoin valuable.
That is why recent Bitcoin quantum-risk debates have shifted from pure cryptography into governance. The network has to weigh future security against property rights, immutability, and the danger of setting a precedent for protocol-level intervention.
The discussion is also expanding beyond Bitcoin. Solana, Ethereum, TRON, XRP Ledger, and other ecosystems are already being compared on quantum-readiness, with recent Ethereum L2 quantum warnings showing how fast the issue can become competitive.
Thorn’s view does not dismiss quantum computing as irrelevant. It argues for a calmer threat model. Satoshi’s coins remain a symbolic and technical pressure point, but the current debate is not about an immediate theft. It is about whether Bitcoin can prepare for a future cryptographic transition without sacrificing the property-rights promise that made the network matter in the first place.
Be the first to comment