Tether CEO: Satoshi's Bitcoin Wallets Might Get Hacked

[yhiaali3]

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino expects Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin holdings to be re-introduced in the future, suggesting that his wallets could be hacked due to their lack of quantum-resistance

Google's late 2024 Willow security concerns raised Although quantum computing is still far from breaking Bitcoin's encryption, the emergence of a chip

requires a million qubits, which is currently unachievable "ECDSA" However, analysts have explained that breaking the algorithm

Ardoino believes that quantum-resistant addresses will be added to the Bitcoin blockchain when a real threat arises, allowing those who still have access to their wallets to move their funds to more secure addresses



Source
https://cointelegraph.com/news/quantum-computing-bitcoin-lost-wallet-threat-tether-ceo

I had written a topic Previously about Google's new quantum chip "Willow" and its danger to old Bitcoin addresses here:
https://www.altcoinstalks.com/index.php?topic=326662.0

since all Satoshi wallets are of the old type, so they are really at risk of being hacked if attackers are able to obtain the quantum power required to reverse the encryption and obtain the private key for these wallets.

To solve this problem, it is enough to transfer Bitcoin to a new quantum-resistant wallet, but in the case of Satoshi, this is not possible because we do not know whether he is alive or dead, and if he is alive and transfers Bitcoin, he will put his privacy that he has always maintained at risk, so what is the solution?

The other problem is if a hacker manages to hack Satoshi's wallets that contain about a million Bitcoins, what will be the impact of this huge amount that was out of circulation entering the market?

[ABCbits]

To solve this problem, it is enough to transfer Bitcoin to a new quantum-resistant wallet, but in the case of Satoshi, this is not possible because we do not know whether he is alive or dead, and if he is alive and transfers Bitcoin, he will put his privacy that he has always maintained at risk, so what is the solution?

This has been debated for years, where i usually saw one of these option
1. Do nothing.
2. Freeze all "vulnerable" address.
3. Redistribute Bitcoin on "vulnerable" address, before someone use Quantum computer to steal it.

Personally i choose option 1 since option 2 can be seen as censorship while option 3 also add question how to redistribution.

The other problem is if a hacker manages to hack Satoshi's wallets that contain about a million Bitcoins, what will be the impact of this huge amount that was out of circulation entering the market?

What else other than giving people opportunity to write FUD or crashing Bitcoin price (assuming CEX doesn't freeze it)? But FWIW, 1 million BTC that speculated to be mined by Satoshi spread into many address. See https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/.

[mu_enrico]

The other problem is if a hacker manages to hack Satoshi's wallets that contain about a million Bitcoins, what will be the impact of this huge amount that was out of circulation entering the market?

1 million BTC that speculated to be mined by Satoshi spread into many address. See https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/.

Yep, people seem to think that it's one address containing 1 million coins, but in reality, it's a massive number of addresses, meaning if 1 or 2 addresses are cracked after all these years, it won't matter. Also, these so-called Satoshi addresses are still hypothetical, hence possible Satoshi or Patoshi addresses.

Anyway, if quantum computers could legitimately "hack" Bitcoin addresses, they might be better off targeting Binance's cold wallet.

[hugeblack]

We are talking about something that may happen after 10 to 15 years, and then it will not be affected even if the private key is reached for those titles, and not for all the network, then the price of bitcoin may reach several trillion dollars and will not be affected by 1,000-100,000 Bitcoin on the price, so discussion on the subject will not lead to something new.

[Findingnemo]

Anyway, if quantum computers could legitimately "hack" Bitcoin addresses, they might be better off targeting Binance's cold wallet.

If I am not wrong the cold wallet of Binance contains around 600K Bitcoins which is still low compared to 1 million so targeting the Sats address seems to be the logical choice.

I beleive that quantum computing is not anywhere near, like atleast 2 decades from now and even if become possible do nothing seems to be the best for the Bitcoin network's integrity cause doing anything else will be considered as control that's against the reason why people into Bitcoin, the immediate effect will be price crash but just like any other day the prices will go up again.

[yhiaali3]

The other problem is if a hacker manages to hack Satoshi's wallets that contain about a million Bitcoins, what will be the impact of this huge amount that was out of circulation entering the market?

1 million BTC that speculated to be mined by Satoshi spread into many address. See https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/.

Yep, people seem to think that it's one address containing 1 million coins, but in reality, it's a massive number of addresses, meaning if 1 or 2 addresses are cracked after all these years, it won't matter. Also, these so-called Satoshi addresses are still hypothetical, hence possible Satoshi or Patoshi addresses.

Anyway, if quantum computers could legitimately "hack" Bitcoin addresses, they might be better off targeting Binance's cold wallet.

Yes I know that Satoshi's Bitcoin is distributed across several wallets and not just one wallet, but they are all old and all equally vulnerable in case of a successful quantum attack.

For Binance I don't expect there to be a risk because they can access their cold wallet and thus transfer Bitcoin to a new quantum resistant wallet if they feel threatened unlike Satoshi's old wallet which is not accessible.

[bitterguy28]

The other problem is if a hacker manages to hack Satoshi's wallets that contain about a million Bitcoins, what will be the impact of this huge amount that was out of circulation entering the market?

the price of bitcoin might go down since there will be more supplies though i do believe it will not be for long since if there are more supplies now people might be interested in buying more especially if the price has gone down for a bit then soon again its price will rise once the supply have gone limited

one thing's for sure though is that it may not happen as quickly as a lot of people are thinking because the hacking of satoshi's wallet has always been talked about but until now it remains to be safe

[yhiaali3]

the price of bitcoin might go down since there will be more supplies though i do believe it will not be for long since if there are more supplies now people might be interested in buying more especially if the price has gone down for a bit then soon again its price will rise once the supply have gone limited

one thing's for sure though is that it may not happen as quickly as a lot of people are thinking because the hacking of satoshi's wallet has always been talked about but until now it remains to be safe

Yes I agree with you, although Satoshi's wallet and the missing Bitcoin are factors that contribute to the scarcity of Bitcoin and this contributes to improving the price, the entry of Bitcoin Satoshi's wallet into the Bitcoin cycle will increase the supply in the market.

But as you mentioned, the reassuring thing is that there is a demand for buying Bitcoin by large institutions and also governments that want to make Bitcoin a strategic reserve and therefore its effect will not last long because the market is able to absorb these large quantities.

[mu_enrico]

If I am not wrong the cold wallet of Binance contains around 600K Bitcoins which is still low compared to 1 million so targeting the Sats address seems to be the logical choice.

But the attacker needs to crack (allegedly) 20k+ Patoshi addresses to get that compared to 2 Binance addresses on the BTC rich list.

Yes I know that Satoshi's Bitcoin is distributed across several wallets and not just one wallet, but they are all old and all equally vulnerable in case of a successful quantum attack.

It's not several but thousands of addresses. If these 20k+ addresses can be cracked then any address won't be safe. AFAIK if these addresses were generated properly with enough entropy then they are as secure as new addresses.

[joniboini]

Tbh, I'm not worried at all. Scarcity is a good factor that makes Bitcoin valuable, but it doesn't mean having 21 million coins in the market will suddenly destroy that value IMO. There are tons of assets out there with more supply. Not to mention whales won't allow the price to fall so quickly if the worst-case scenario happens. I second the opinion that in the long run it will be better so there won't be more fud about the possibility of satoshi selling his coins.

[TomPluz]

I am wondering who will own and be responsible with the Bitcoin that can be hacked out of the wallets ascribed to Satoshi Nakamoto...will this be all man to himself type of thing or hack all you want and own what you hacked? Now, in case it will be like this a chaos can ensue in the Bitcoin community. Nevertheless, when able quantum computing will come those who got the technology will not be restrained to try to hacked all the wallets they can and there is no need to announce it to the public...in other words it will come if it come come. But it is good thing to note that we can shift to quantum-resistant wallet technology if there can be one already. So much talk on this quantum computing and the potential it possess to create havoc in the cryptocurrency community...am just here waiting on what can be. Let it be...let it come and let's see.

[yhiaali3]

It's not several but thousands of addresses. If these 20k+ addresses can be cracked then any address won't be safe. AFAIK if these addresses were generated properly with enough entropy then they are as secure as new addresses.

Yes, the old Bitcoin addresses were created correctly, but they are not as secure as the new addresses. Why do you think the new addresses were developed, Segwight and then Taproot?

The new addresses have greater features, as they are faster, have lower fees and are more secure. An example of this can be given through virus programs, for example, as old, outdated programs are not able to protect devices from attacks by modern viruses. They are only able to protect them from old viruses. You need to update your antivirus programs to be able to protect your device from attacks by modern viruses.

[mu_enrico]

Yes, the old Bitcoin addresses were created correctly, but they are not as secure as the new addresses. Why do you think the new addresses were developed, Segwight and then Taproot?

I haven't dug into the taproot so I can't comment on that. However, the segwit address has the same security as the legacy address AFAIK since it uses the same public - private key pair. You can generate a legacy address (1-address), a nested segwit (3-address), and a native segwit address (bc1-address) using the same private key. Segwit is mainly for weight unit thing, to make tx cheaper, not for security.

How about Taproot @ABCbits? Is it more secure? Kindly correct any of our mistakes here.

[Stompix]

since all Satoshi wallets are of the old type, so they are really at risk of being hacked if attackers are able to obtain the quantum power required to reverse the encryption and obtain the private key for these wallets.

I would have expected better from a guy like the CEO of Tether.

The quantum threat is in stages, the first hit will not be Satoshis's coins, it will be coins in wallets that have been used.
The first and easier vector of attack is not breaking privatekeys, is breaking the public keys, the ones that have been used in transactions for sending coins out to someone. Technically every Binance wallet is far more exposed than Satoshi's wallets.

[ABCbits]

How about Taproot @ABCbits? Is it more secure? Kindly correct any of our mistakes here.

Compared with P2PK address which speculated used by Satoshi to mine 1 million Bitcoin, other kind of address (legacy, segwit and taproot) is only more secure when it's public key isn't exposed. Public key is exposed when you spend Bitcoin from that address or sign a message.

But note my statement only applies to address where it's condition to spend is sign from a private key.