Suggesting freezing old Bitcoin addresses, including Satoshi Nakamoto’s wallets, under the pretext of “protecting them from quantum computing” may seem like a security solution, but in reality it opens a very dangerous door.

First, the quantum threat today is greatly exaggerated.There are no quantum computers anywhere near the ability to practically break Bitcoin’s (ECDSA) keys. Even the most pessimistic estimates talk about many long years, and possibly decades, before that becomes feasible.

Therefore, there is no immediate danger that justifies a drastic measure like freezing millions of Bitcoins.
Second, freezing assets creates a dangerous precedent: if “old wallets” can be frozen, then later any wallets can be frozen for other reasons. This undermines the core idea that Bitcoin is a permissionless system (permissionless)

Third, these wallets are not “a problem,” but part of the rules of the game:
Lost or inactive Bitcoin has always been part of the supply. The market has implicitly priced this in since the beginning. Changing the rules now rewrites the system’s economic history

Fourth, the real solution **if a quantum threat appears** is voluntary upgrading:
- Quantum-resistant algorithms can be introduced
- Users gradually transfer their funds
- Without confiscation or forced freezing
Freezing 4+ million Bitcoins is not a “technical fix,” but a deep political change in the nature of Bitcoin. And the real danger here is not quantum computing, but breaking the principle: “Whoever holds the keys, holds the coins”
$BTC $GT $XRP