See? Even in the sources you linked, there is still some doubt, if Satoshi=Patoshi. And I think it is not the case, for example because the Genesis Block does not match some patterns.

Also, each time, when extraNonce was resetted to zero, then you can have this miner, or that miner. And the way of mining also changed over time.

1 MB legacy transaction size is a threshold. If you have 1400 UTXOs, then you have 70k coins. That will give you a transaction of slightly below 100 kvB. So, for 14,000 UTXOs, you can potentially move 700k coins, maybe 750k coins, if they are all P2WPKH inputs. But: because of legacy P2PK or P2PKH, it will take much more space than that.

Note that you will need a regular DER signature, for each individual input. And note that you cannot use a Segwit discount, because it didn't exist at that time, and you had only P2PK or P2PKH. So, you will need at least a few blocks, to even combine all of those coins, even if you solve everything at once.

Well, 20k inputs in a single 1 MB legacy block space, would mean something around 50 bytes per input. It is hard to get DER signatures that small. The smallest valid ones take 9 bytes, and you would need the private key for x-value pubkey below 0x80 (which is very hard), and around 2^249 s-value grinding (which is also extremely hard). Even exploiting SIGHASH_SINGLE bug will force you to grind a lot of SHA-256 transaction data, to get 9-byte signatures, because for around 128 valid s-values, and around 64 valid r-values, you will get around 8192 matching keys, so even if you prepare non-random pubkeys upfront, it will be hard to get there.

In the end, I do think that people who would - crack - the system will have as much faith in BTC as to not get their bags off immidiately. Bigger entities or not, a group of such people would have the common sense in their heads, in my view of it, with the funds to make such a possibility - a reality. After all, we are talking about such an amount that would make anybody crazy, in the single hands, that is. And I don't see it happening in a spark of a moment - the BTC will be ready by the time such an event would be possible in my opinion, but only time will tell.

1. That's true. But if developer decide to lock vulnerable address (address with exposed public key which use ECDSA), it's probably many years after address (which use quantum resistant cryptography) activated on mainnet.
2-4. I get the point, but AFAIK QC wouldn't break SHA-256. And IIRC, both P2PKH and P2WPKH also use RIPEMD-160.

Well it has been floated out there that there is already a plan B ready for that event in the guise of another coin created for this very purpose that is apparently a coin forked from the main chain or an exact clone of Bitcoin itself.

OP's concern actually is about Satoshi's coin got hacked using QC, not Satoshi dumping his Bitcoin. And while QC isn't expected to break SHA-256, it doesn't apply to ECDSA which used by Bitcoin where public key of address revealed when you spend the coin on that address.

QC is the sci fi dream for me, the reality that mathematical computation are transfinite algorithms of Qbits binary operations. Remember when basic binary computers were mostly secluded to researchers and military personnel’s ? This literally QC except now we probably never will have a personal QC computer ? I’m not sure this is also my first post I’m just normie bitcoiner but with advanced technology what more would the science want     I’m not cracked enough in math and quantum physics but superconducting and atomic manipulation of electrons is really a far cry for breaking physics don’t you think ? I mean seriously atoms and higgs boson quarks are last application until really scientists run out of mathematical proofs and applications on use case. We have communication systems and interest in improving interstellar communications speed but besides security issues and possible privacy concerns QC really isn’t something I believe will benefit us technologically in broader context…. Hi mom ❤️ 👋

Wallets associated with early miners, particularly those speculatively attributed to Nakamoto, contain a significant amount of Bitcoin. The risks mentioned, such as market destabilization, need to be analyzed in practical terms:

    1. Available supply and liquidity
    Moving large amounts could indeed cause significant price fluctuations, but the market has matured since 2009-2010. Daily trading volumes and the growing liquidity ecosystem are now more resilient.

    2. Blockchain identification and transparency
    Any transactions from those wallets will be immediately visible in the blockchain. The community would be able to anticipate and react to such events. This level of transparency provides the market with a self-regulatory mechanism.

    3. Assumptions about intentions
    If it is assumed that these coins are being spent to destabilize the market, this contradicts bitcoin's original goal of being a decentralized and resilient monetary system. Furthermore, the reactive market behavior is a perception problem, not a technical weakness in the protocol.

    4. Psychological vs. fundamental impact
    While the psychological impact of the "historical" bitcoin movement is real, from a fundamental standpoint, the bitcoin protocol remains intact. The technological core values - decentralization, immutability, and resilience - are unaffected.

be prepare

You heard bullshit
There are approximately 24,000 unspent 50-BTC P2PK TXOs, each with a different pubkey. They were not mined by only one person



What theft? Anybody with the means to sign a txinput can spend a UTXO 

What chaos? You're making a doom assertion without explaining what you're frightened of

Forking off just to burn Satoshi's BTC holdings won't be seen with good eyes by the community. Isn't that what banks do with inactive accounts? They seize/confiscate the money if there are no transactions recorded for a specified amount of time. This goes against the true principles of freedom and censorship-resistance. Bitcoin SV proposed this, only to fail in the long run. But making a fork just to ward off quantum computing attacks? That would be quickly approved by miners and nodes without them thinking it twice. After all, it's something that benefits Bitcoin and its users.

I think BTC in its current state is pretty resistant against quantum attacks. But developers can introduce Lamport Signatures as a "backup plan" just in case. Now what if Bitcoin uses Quantum computers for its own benefit? I mean Quantum computers being used as nodes and miners on the network. Then it will become bigger and stronger than ever. With Bitcoin being decentralized and open source, we have nothing to fear. Am I right?

That's point. If Satoshi's coins are burnt, then Bitcoin would be no different than traditional banks. Who's to say your dormant coins locked in a cold storage wallet are going to get burnt in the long run? It will pose a huge risk to anyone's savings. There's really no way to determine whenever certain coins are lost or dormant.

To help protect Satoshi's (and other's) holdings, developers must apply security upgrades that would make BTC resilient against external attacks. Quantum computing will not be a threat to Bitcoin if developers act quickly. Even now, Bitcoin's network hashrate is more than enough to prevent a double-spend attack. It will be computationally expensive to do so. We can't predict the future, so I'd hope for the best.