Is the "quantum computer fear" exaggerated... 1.71 million Bitcoins are the real risk

In response to the claim that “if early Bitcoin (BTC) holdings are stolen all at once by a quantum computer, the market will collapse,” on-chain analyst James Check (James Check) countered that “the impact of headline-driven sell-offs is exaggerated.”

In his report titled “Selling Satoshi’s Stack” (Selling Satoshi’s Stack) released on April 23 (local time), Check focused on how to handle old transaction outputs (UTXO) with exposed public keys once a ‘cryptographically feasible quantum computer’ (CRQC) becomes a reality, especially concerning the handling of early Bitcoin holdings related to Satoshi.

The estimated vulnerable amount is 6.93 million BTC… “the actual risk is an upper bound.”

The report shows that the total holdings potentially susceptible to remote quantum attacks are 6.93M BTC. Specifically, this includes: 1.72M BTC from P2PK outputs from the Satoshi era, 214k BTC from Taproot addresses, and about 214k BTC from addresses reused multiple times.

However, Check believes this figure is closer to a “theoretical maximum.” He analyzes that Taproot is relatively new, and holders are still likely to remain active; once a “post-quantum” transition path is established, migration is highly probable. Also, the holdings from address reuse are very likely managed by exchanges, custodians, spot ETFs, and other entities with clear incentives to upgrade.

The core concern is the 1.71 million BTC of P2PK… “equivalent to 60 to 90 days of sell pressure.”

Check points out that the “real risk” is the 5M BTC of P2PK holdings from the Satoshi era. He compares it to a “sunk treasure ship that can be taken just by unlocking the lock,” but emphasizes that even in the worst-case scenario—if all these holdings are stolen and flooded into the market—it would not directly lead to “the end of Bitcoin.”

He estimates that, compared to the inflows, trading volumes, and sell-off flows observed during bull or bear market endpoints, this 1.71M BTC roughly equates to “60 to 90 days” of selling activity. He explains that this would indeed exert downward pressure on prices, possibly triggering a bear market, but it is far from a “catastrophic market collapse.”

The solution is ‘post-quantum’ preparedness… the freeze debate is a ‘principle’ issue.

Check clarifies that he does not advocate ignoring quantum risks. He agrees that the Bitcoin community should accelerate “discussions, development, and preemptive preparations” for reliable post-quantum solutions, citing historical market absorption of old supply as evidence.

For example, he explains that during bear markets, the “reanimated supply”—Bitcoin held for more than six months and then transferred—averages around 10k BTC daily, while during bull market profit-taking phases, it can spike to over 20k–30k BTC. Additionally, he proposes a calculation: if a compromise like BIP-360 “hourglass” (hourglass) is adopted, limiting each block to one P2PK output, processing all approximately 38k outputs would take about 264 days, providing a window for network transition. Ultimately, the more difficult issue is not the scale of sell-off but the principle of Bitcoin: “Should we protect the property rights of vulnerable old coins, or intervene and freeze them?” Check emphasizes, “If advocating for freezing, provide data to support it.” As of writing, BTC’s trading price is $77,869 (about 115 million Korean won, based on an exchange rate of 1,477.70 KRW/USD).

Summary by TokenPost.ai

🔎 Market interpretation - In response to fears that “quantum computers will steal early Bitcoin holdings all at once, causing market collapse,” some counter-arguments suggest this is an exaggeration based on “headline figures” - Theoretically, the vulnerable assets amount to about 6.93 million BTC, approaching an “upper limit,” with the actual impact narrowed down to the Satoshi-era P2PK holdings of 1.72M BTC - Even in the worst case where P2PK assets are sold off, the scale is only about 60-90 days of sell pressure, which could cause sharp declines or a bear market, but not an “apocalyptic” event 💡 Strategy points - When assessing risk, do not look at the “total (6.93 million BTC)” but break it down into “immediately usable potential (P2PK 10k BTC)” and “market absorption capacity (60-90 days)” - Assets from Taproot and address reuse are likely managed by exchanges, custodians, ETFs, and other entities with clear incentives to upgrade, so monitoring whether they migrate ahead of post-quantum transition announcements is key - BIP-360 (hourglass) as a compromise plan to “buy transition time” can serve as a tool to reduce short-term panic, but the bigger governance debate centers on “freezing vulnerable coins (intervention) vs property rights/inviolability principles(” 📘 Terminology explanations - CRQC )Cryptographically feasible quantum computer(: A quantum computer capable of practically cracking current cryptographic systems - UTXO: Unspent transaction output, the “balance units” in Bitcoin. Wallet balances consist of multiple UTXOs - P2PK: Early script type, public key exposed, considered a potential target for quantum attacks - Taproot: One of Bitcoin’s latest upgrades, improving address/script efficiency and privacy - Reanimated supply: The supply of Bitcoin that has not moved for over six months and then begins to transfer again - BIP: Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. A document used to discuss network rule or feature changes

💡 FAQ )

Q. Are all 6.93 million BTC categorized as “vulnerable assets” at immediate risk? Not exactly. The 6.93 million BTC is a broad upper bound for the “potentially quantum-attackable” category. Assets from Taproot or address reuse are very likely managed by exchanges, custodians, ETFs, and other motivated entities, which can significantly reduce risk through migration once post-quantum solutions are ready. Q. If the approximately 1.71 million BTC of P2PK coins from the Satoshi era are stolen and sold, will the market collapse? Analyst James Check believes that claims of “collapse” are exaggerated. He explains that even under worst assumptions, the sell-off pressure from these assets would be comparable to about 60-90 days of typical sell activity observed during bull or bear market endpoints. In other words, it could cause significant price drops but is unlikely to be considered a “doomsday” event. Q. What are the solutions to quantum risks? Why does it trigger a “freeze debate”? The key is to proactively discuss, develop, and prepare reliable “post-quantum” response plans. However, during this process, philosophical and governance conflicts may arise between “freezing to protect vulnerable old coins’ property rights” and “adhering to Bitcoin’s inviolability and censorship resistance principles.” Check emphasizes that, rather than spreading fear through numbers, it is more important to choose principles and support them with data.