Quantum computing and the threat it poses to encrypted blockchains have once again crept into online bitcoin conversations, raising concerns that it poses a long-term risk that investors and developers are still struggling to talk about in the same language.
The latest flare-up in the debate followed comments from prominent Bitcoin developers pushing back against claims that quantum computers pose any real risk to the network in the foreseeable future. Their view is straightforward: that machines capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography do not exist today and are unlikely for decades.
Adam Back, co-founder of Bitcoin infrastructure firm Blockstream, described the risk as effectively non-existent in the near term, calling quantum computers “ridiculously early” and riddled with unsolved research problems. Even in a worst-case scenario, Back argued, Bitcoin’s design would not allow coins to be instantly stolen across the network.
https://x.com/adam3us/status/2001589051317719400
Back’s assessment is widely shared among protocol developers. However, critics say the problem is not the timeline, but the lack of visible 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 a portion of existing coins at risk.
The network wouldn’t collapse overnight, but funds sitting in older address formats — including Satoshi Nakamoto’s 1.1 million bitcoins, which have been untouched since 2010 — could become vulnerable to threat actors
For now, this threat remains theoretical. Yet governments and large corporations are already acting as if quantum disruption is inevitable. The US has outlined plans to phase out classical cryptography by the mid-2030s, while companies such as Cloudflare and Apple have begun rolling out quantum-resistant systems.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, has not yet agreed on a concrete transition plan. And that hole is where the market turmoil creeps in.
Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, said on X that the disconnect between developers and investors is becoming hard to ignore. Capital, he argues, is less concerned about whether quantum attacks will come in five years or 15, and more focused on whether Bitcoin has a credible path forward if cryptography standards change.
https://x.com/nic_carter/status/2001654123775857129
Plans to fight back
Developers counter that Bitcoin can adapt well before any real danger emerges. Proposals exist to migrate users towards quantum-resistant address formats and, in extreme cases, limit spending from 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-resistant cryptography.
It gives users a means to transfer their coins to wallets that rely on various mathematical algorithms that are believed to be far more resistant to cracks from quantum computers.
BIP360 outlines three new signature methods, each offering different levels of protection, allowing the network to transition gradually rather than forcing a sudden upgrade. Nothing would change automatically. Users would sign up over time by moving money to the new address format.
https://x.com/caprioleio/status/2001492235003859271
Supporters of BIP360 argue that the proposal is less about predicting when quantum computers will arrive and more about preparation. Moving Bitcoin to a new cryptographic standard can take years, involving software updates, infrastructure changes, and user coordination.
Starting early, they say, reduces the risk of being forced into hasty decisions later.
However, Bitcoin’s conservative governance becomes a challenge when dealing with long-term threats that require early consensus.
Quantum computing is not currently an existential threat to Bitcoin, and no credible timeline suggests otherwise. But as capital becomes more institutional and long-term, even distant 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.
