Quantum computing and the threat it poses to encrypted blockchains have once again crept into online conversations about Bitcoin, sparking concerns about long-term risk that investors and developers still struggle to speak in the same language.
The latest flare-up in the debate follows comments from prominent Bitcoin developers objecting to claims that quantum computers pose a real risk to the network for the foreseeable future. Their point of view is simple: machines capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography do not exist today and are unlikely to exist for decades.
Adam Back, co-founder of Bitcoin infrastructure company Blockstream, described the risk as effectively non-existent in the short term, calling quantum computing “ridiculously early” and riddled with unresolved research problems. Even in a worst-case scenario, Back argued, Bitcoin’s design would not allow for instant theft of coins on the network.
https://x.com/adam3us/status/2001589051317719400
Back’s assessment is widely shared among protocol developers. Critics, however, say the problem is not the schedule, but the visible lack of preparation.
Bitcoin relies on elliptic curve cryptography to secure wallets and authorize transactions. As CoinDesk previously explained, sufficiently advanced quantum computers running Shor’s algorithm – a quantum algorithm used to find the prime factors of large numbers – could derive private keys from exposed public keys, putting some of the existing coins at risk.
The network wouldn’t collapse overnight, but funds stored in older address formats — including Satoshi Nakamoto’s 1.1 million bitcoins, which haven’t been touched since 2010 — could become vulnerable to bad actors.
For now, this threat remains theoretical. Yet governments and big businesses are already acting as if quantum disruption is inevitable. The United States has outlined plans to phase out classical cryptography by the mid-2030s, while companies such as Cloudflare and Apple have begun deploying quantum-resistant systems.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, has not yet agreed on a concrete transition plan. And it is in this gap that the market’s malaise sets in.
Nic Carter, partner at Castle Island Ventures, said on X that the divide between developers and investors was becoming hard to ignore. Capital, he argues, is less concerned with whether quantum attacks will arrive in five or fifteen years, and more focused on whether Bitcoin has a credible path forward if crypto standards change.
https://x.com/nic_carter/status/2001654123775857129
Plans to fight back
Developers counter that Bitcoin can adapt long before any real danger appears. There are proposals to migrate users to quantum-resistant address formats and, in extreme cases, restrict spending of legacy wallets. All of this would be preventative rather than reactive.
One such plan is the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-360, which introduces a new type of Bitcoin address designed to use quantum resistance cryptography.
It offers users a way to transfer their coins into wallets that rely on different mathematical algorithms, which are said to be much more resistant to hacking by quantum computers.
BIP360 introduces three new signing methods, each offering different levels of protection, so the network can evolve gradually rather than forcing a sudden upgrade. Nothing would change automatically. Users would register there over time by moving funds to the new address format.
https://x.com/caprioleio/status/2001492235003859271
Supporters of BIP360 argue that the proposal is less about predicting the arrival of quantum computers and more about preparing for them. Bitcoin’s transition to a new cryptographic standard could take years, involving software updates, infrastructure changes and user coordination.
They say starting early reduces the risk of being forced to make hasty decisions later.
However, conservative governance of Bitcoin becomes a challenge when dealing with long-term threats that require early consensus.
Quantum computing does not currently pose an existential threat to Bitcoin, and no credible timeline suggests otherwise. However, as capital becomes more institutional and long-term, even remote risks require clearer answers.
Until developers and investors converge on a common framework, the quantum question will continue to linger – not as a panic, but as a quiet friction weighing on sentiment.
