An analysis says the 1.1 million bitcoins believed to be held by Satoshi Nakamoto are spread across more than 22,000 small wallets as a deliberate defence strategy against future quantum-computer attacks.

U.Today, a blockchain outlet, reported on June 25 that Bitwise research head Andre Dragosch recently disclosed Satoshi’s past correspondence. Dragosch lent support to findings by crypto analyst Marco Batistoni that the dispersion was not accidental.

The core evidence in the investigation is the so-called “Patoshi pattern” seen in early Bitcoin mining. Under the pattern, the 1.1 million BTC believed to belong to Satoshi are not gathered in a single wallet. Instead, they are scattered across more than 22,000 independent addresses holding 50 BTC each. Batistoni viewed the structure as a device to raise the cost of an attack, not a byproduct of the early network design.

The background lies in early Bitcoin wallet architecture. In the network’s early version, a wallet public key was exposed on the blockchain from the outset. That meant a huge balance concentrated in one address could become a direct target for a powerful quantum computer. Dragosch’s side judged that Satoshi anticipated the vulnerability and responded by increasing the costs an attacker would have to bear.

Under this structure, an attacker would have to crack each wallet separately to steal the entire holding. That would require repeating complex calculations more than 22,000 times. Batistoni stressed that the time, energy and hardware costs would be so large that it would be hard to justify resources for an attack that siphons off bitcoin little by little. He said dividing the coins into tens of thousands of small wallets instead of one giant wallet effectively undermined the economics of an attack.

The analysis came as debate intensifies among Bitcoin developers over BIP-361. The proposal would set a cutoff date for moving to a quantum-resistant signature system and stop accepting existing digital signatures after that. Its authors argue that early-era inactive BTC not moved to new wallets by a set deadline should be permanently frozen and removed from circulation. They say it is necessary for the security of the broader market.

Opponents, however, say forced freezing touches Bitcoin’s core principles. Some developers, including Blockstream CEO Adam Back (아담 백), criticised the idea that an outside decision could deprive access to legitimately held coins, saying it would undermine the basic norm of inviolability and independence of personal assets.

Dragosch cited a forum post Satoshi left in July 2010 as grounds for opposing forced freezing. Satoshi wrote to users anxious about the risk of cryptographic attacks: "If that were to happen in reality, we would have time to switch to a stronger security system." He left the view that even if a quantum threat materialises, the network would not collapse immediately and users would have a buffer period to move to new protective addresses.

Satoshi’s dispersed wallet structure is also being interpreted not only as a line of defence but as a kind of alarm. Even if users later move to new secure wallets, Satoshi’s old wallet cluster left on the blockchain could function like a “canary in a coal mine.” If even one of those addresses were breached first, it could signal that effective quantum attack tools have emerged.

The current dispute is less about the quantum threat itself than about how to respond. The findings highlighted that the Bitcoin network already had a certain level of defence built in at the Satoshi design stage. As a result, whether early inactive holdings should be artificially frozen under proposals such as BIP-361 is expected to remain a central issue among developers.

INSIGHT: Satoshi was aware of potential quantum risks for #Bitcoin in 2010 already. He also split his roughly 1M BTC across 22,000 different addresses, probably to mitigate such a risk. https://t.co/s8ShavnIDx pic.twitter.com/Ex6iYcYsFV