Discussions on how Bitcoin should respond to quantum computers are lifting a design presented 16 years ago by Satoshi Nakamoto into the basis for official proposals.

On July 16 local time, blockchain media outlet U.Today reported that developers are testing a plan to force a replacement of the network’s cryptographic components by setting a cutoff at a specific block height. This structure has become the foundation for BIP-360 and BIP-361.

Satoshi identified already disclosed ECDSA public keys as a weak point. He judged that a quantum computer using Shor’s algorithm could derive a private key from a public key.

The risk zone is about 35 percent of bitcoin in circulation, or about 6.9 million BTC. It includes wallets that used early P2PK outputs and wallets that reused addresses. Satoshi conceived a mandatory soft fork to protect them.

The currently proposed migration rules are organised in two stages. First, users move to bc1z, a quantum-resistant address format based on Merkle tree cryptography. After that, a deadline is set at a specific block height, and existing wallets are fully locked once that point is passed.

The issue is cost. Switching to a stronger algorithm increases transaction data size by about 57 percent, which could also raise transfer fees for ordinary users.

Early lost holdings are also a variable. Those holders cannot update software and cannot move to the new address system. To prevent quantum attacks, the network would have to permanently isolate such balances, and once locked they cannot be recovered.

In that case, Satoshi’s own wallet is not an exception. If the deadline rule he proposed is applied, Satoshi’s wallet could also be included among those to be locked. A solution aimed at network survival could result in permanently closing his digital legacy.

The discussion shows that responding to quantum computers has moved beyond a purely theoretical review and has been made concrete as rules for changing the Bitcoin protocol. It also shows that stronger security could require accepting higher fees and the permanent isolation of early lost holdings.