Researchers have long warned that the advent of quantum computers, advanced systems that exploit the counterintuitive laws of quantum physics, could present a massive cybersecurity threat.

While scientists are still only starting to get a clearer picture of the possible implications — we’re still far from quantum computers becoming commercially viable, let alone useful for everyday tasks — it’s a threat that core contributors to the Bitcoin cryptocurrency project aren’t taking lightly.

In a recently proposed proposal, dubbed BIP361, Bitcoin developer and cryptography expert James Lopp suggested freezing a whopping 5.6 million long-dormant Bitcoins, worth around $430 billion, to safeguard them from one day being cracked by quantum computers.

It’s a highly controversial plan, because the crypto community has long prided itself on allowing users to hold on to their riches without any external influence, at least in theory.

As experts told CoinDesk, freezing roughly 30 percent of the total supply of all Bitcoins could send a dangerous message, potentially triggering an immediate correction of almost unprecedented proportions.

“Freezing any coins, even ‘lost’ ones, tells the market that all (roughly) 19.8 million BTC currently in circulation are conditionally owned,” Op Net founder Samuel Patt told CoinDesk. “Institutional risk desks do not care about the reason, they care about the precedent.”

The millions of dormant Bitcoins have not changed wallets for more than a decade. They’re also stored in addresses that haven’t been upgraded to the latest cybersecurity standards, meaning that they’re theoretically more exposed to quantum attacks.

Lopp told CoinDesk earlier this month that he would “rather for lost or dormant coins to be taken out of reach from an attacker rather than have them flow into the hands of an entity that likely doesn’t care much about the ecosystem.”

Lopp’s suggestion, which effectively undermines the crypto community’s core principles of financial freedom through a decentralized banking alternative, triggered a heated debate in the Bitcoin community.

Isn’t “the point of bitcoin supposed to be that it can’t be frozen??” one Redditor pondered.

“We ok with just freezing wallets now? Y’all don’t see a future issue here?” another fretted.

The blowback didn’t fly over Lopp’s head.

“I know folks don’t like it,” he tweeted. “I don’t like it myself. I wrote it because I like the alternative even less.”

“I hope it never needs to be considered for adoption,” he added. “Ultimately, my thesis is that in the face of existential threat, individual economic incentives outweigh philosophical principles.”

Critics maintain that freezing the dormant coins would send the wrong signal. SazMining CEO and co-founder Kent Halliburton told CoinDesk that “you don’t defend Bitcoin by breaking its core promise of inviolable property rights.”

“We operate data centers on four continents, and our clients own every machine,” he added. “That model only works because Bitcoin guarantees unconditional ownership.”

Others argue that there could be far more elegant alternative approaches to safeguarding the dormant tokens.

It’s a thorny debate that’s likely to rage on, especially considering the many unknowns when it comes to quantum computing. Any changes would likely require overwhelming support before being implemented. The proposal also doesn’t include a timeline for adoption, leaving its fate unknown, at least for now.

“As with many cases in life, and especially with Bitcoin, doing nothing is better than doing something,” Quantum Economics founder and self-described Bitcoin “maximalist” Mati Greenspan told CoinDesk.

More on Bitcoin: The New York Times Says It’s Identified the Creator of Bitcoin