Charles Hoskinson Says Bitcoin’s BIP-361 Quantum Defense Is A Hard Fork That Can’t Save Satoshi Coins

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson said Bitcoin’s proposed quantum defense, BIP-361, is “a hard fork that can’t save Satoshi’s coins,” arguing the plan is mislabeled as a soft fork and cannot rescue roughly 1.7 million pre-2013 bitcoin, including about 1 million attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto.

“Cardano's Charles Hoskinson says Bitcoin's quantum fix is a hard fork that can't save Satoshi's coins The Cardano founder argues BIP-361 is mislabeled as a soft fork and that its zero-knowledge recovery plan cannot rescue roughly 1”

@coindesk

In the CoinDesk account, Hoskinson said “To actually do this, you need a hard fork,” adding that BIP-361 would functionally require a hard fork because it invalidates existing signature schemes that users are relying on.

@coindesk

CoinDesk also reported that Bitcoin core developers earlier this week proposed freezing 8 million coins to defend against quantum attackers, while Hoskinson argued that even that approach cannot protect the network’s oldest coins.

Bitcoin News likewise framed Hoskinson’s critique as BIP-361 being “in disguise,” saying it would effectively confiscate 1.7 million BTC while misrepresenting the scope of changes required.

In that same Bitcoin News piece, Hoskinson delivered the argument in a livestream and pointed to data stating that as of March 1, 2026, “more than 34% of all Bitcoin supply holds exposed public keys vulnerable to quantum computing attacks.”

The article said Hoskinson estimated that figure represents roughly 8 million BTC left vulnerable to attackers with sufficiently powerful quantum computers.

Across both accounts, the central technical dispute is whether BIP-361’s zero-knowledge recovery mechanism can work for coins created before the standards it depends on.

Hoskinson’s argument in the CoinDesk report turns on what he says BIP-361 requires: a zero-knowledge proof tied to a BIP-39 seed phrase, which is described as “a standard for generating wallet keys from a recoverable phrase.”

CoinDesk says Hoskinson argued this approach cannot rescue approximately 1.7 million bitcoin that predate BIP-39’s introduction in 2013, including “the roughly 1 million coins associated with Satoshi's early mining activity.”

Bitcoin News

The article explains that those early coins were generated using “a different key derivation method from the original Bitcoin wallet software,” which relied on “a local key pool rather than a deterministic seed,” leaving “There is no seed phrase to prove knowledge of.”

CoinDesk quotes Hoskinson directly: “1.7 million coins can't do that. It's not possible. 1.1 million of which belong to Satoshi,” and it adds that if the proposal passes “those coins would remain permanently frozen regardless of whether their original owners ever attempt to migrate.”

Bitcoin News presents the same core claim with different phrasing, saying “There’s no zero knowledge proof that I can construct for a system like that,” and it adds that Hoskinson said the mechanism breaks down for approximately 1.7 million BTC held in wallets predating “the BIP 32 and BIP 39 standards.”

In that account, Hoskinson also said “Those coins, he said, including what is believed to be Satoshi Nakamoto‘s holdings of roughly 1.1 million BTC, cannot be recovered through any ZK-based system tied to a seed phrase.”

Both articles therefore connect the technical limitation to a specific historical timeline: the absence of seed phrases for pre-2013 coins.

Beyond the cryptography, Hoskinson’s critique in CoinDesk links the controversy to Bitcoin’s governance process, arguing that “Bitcoin's lack of formal on-chain governance leaves the network unable to resolve these tradeoffs through a structured process.”

“Cardano's Charles Hoskinson says Bitcoin's quantum fix is a hard fork that can't save Satoshi's coins The Cardano founder argues BIP-361 is mislabeled as a soft fork and that its zero-knowledge recovery plan cannot rescue roughly 1”

CoinDesk

CoinDesk says Hoskinson argued that contentious upgrades are instead negotiated through “developer mailing lists and social pressure,” which he framed as inadequate for high-stakes protocol changes.

The CoinDesk report also describes the cultural context for the hard fork question, saying “The distinction matters because Bitcoin's development culture has historically opposed hard forks, viewing them as violations of the network's immutability.”

It adds that BIP-361 authors described the proposal as a soft fork, a characterization Hoskinson called “a lie.”

In the Bitcoin News account, Hoskinson similarly frames the issue as a mismatch between what the proposal claims and what it would require, saying “He said the mechanics of what it actually requires make it a hard fork, something Bitcoin has never done.”

That piece also expands the governance argument by saying Hoskinson pointed to Cardano, Polkadot, and Tezos as examples of blockchains with “formal governance mechanisms capable of handling this kind of protocol-level decision through a community vote.”

It further states that without governance and without willingness to hard fork, Hoskinson said Bitcoin faces two choices in the 2030s: “let a quantum-capable attacker drain vulnerable addresses and dump a large share of the total supply onto the open market,” or “push through a hard fork that makes 1.7 million BTC permanently unspendable.”

The CoinDesk report identifies BIP-361 as a proposal from developer Jameson Lopp and others to phase out quantum-vulnerable bitcoin addresses, and it says Lopp acknowledged on X that he does not like the proposal and hopes it never needs to be adopted.

CoinDesk quotes Lopp’s characterization of the idea as “a rough idea for a contingency plan” rather than a finalized specification, and it notes that Lopp estimated freezing dormant coins at 5.6 million bitcoin.

@coindesk

CoinDesk also says Lopp has argued that freezing dormant coins would be preferable to allowing a future quantum attacker to recover and dump them on the market.

In the Bitcoin News article, BIP-361 is described as being authored by Bitcoin developers Jameson Lopp, Christian Papathanasiou, Ian Smith, Joe Ross, Steve Vaile, and Pierre-Luc Dallaire-Demers.

That piece also says Hoskinson warned that 1.7 million BTC, including Satoshi’s coins, cannot be recovered even under BIP-361’s proposed ZK proof system.

It further states that BIP-361 proposes freezing quantum-vulnerable funds and requiring users to migrate to post-quantum addresses, and it describes the recovery system as “a zero-knowledge proof recovery system that would allow holders of HD wallet seed phrases to reclaim frozen funds.”

The two articles therefore provide both the authorship roster and the internal disagreement about whether the plan should ever be adopted.

The Bitcoin News account places Hoskinson’s critique in a broader political and market context, saying he raised the role of institutional holders and suggested they would pressure Bitcoin developers to act.

“Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson said Bitcoin’s proposed quantum fix, BIP 361, would effectively confiscate 1”

Bitcoin News

It states that Hoskinson suggested “Blackrock and Strategy have accumulated significant bitcoin positions in recent years,” and it adds that he suggested “possibly the U.S. government as a reported strategic reserve holder” could also be involved.

Bitcoin News

In that framing, Hoskinson said, “They own you now,” and he added, “They’re going to force you to do that, and they’re going to steal all of Satoshi’s coins.”

The article also quotes Hoskinson’s warning that “1.7 million coins. Oof. They’re just all going to be stolen and dumped,” and it ties that to the choice between doing nothing and pushing through a hard fork.

It further says Hoskinson told listeners, “And you’re just going to have to endure 30% of the supply being dumped on the open market,” while also asserting that “you guys are just going to have to deal with it” regarding quantum vulnerability.

CoinDesk, by contrast, focuses more tightly on the mechanics and the governance critique, but it similarly warns that if the proposal passes “those coins would remain permanently frozen regardless of whether their original owners ever attempt to migrate.”

Both articles thus converge on consequences for the oldest coins and on the idea that the proposed fix could lead to permanent unspendability rather than recovery.