Some Bitcoin developers are no longer arguing whether quantum computers will break the network, but are letting onlookers know how long it would take to prepare if it ever did.
That shift was crystallized this week by longtime Bitcoin developer Jameson Lopp, who said that while quantum computers are unlikely to threaten Bitcoin anytime soon, any meaningful defensive change could take much longer than many assume.
“No, quantum computers will not break Bitcoin in the near future,” Lopp wrote. “We will continue to observe their development. Still, it could easily take 5 to 10 years to make thoughtful changes to the protocol (and an unprecedented migration of funds).
Loading…
The discussion matters because Bitcoin’s value increasingly depends on long-term trust. As more institutional capital treats bitcoin as a perennial holding, even remote technical risks can influence allocation decisions and shape how markets price uncertainty, as CoinDesk reported on Saturday.
Lopp’s point was less about whether Bitcoin survives quantum computing and more about how much time the network would actually take if it ever had to respond.
His comment reframed the debate away from immediacy and towards logistics. Although quantum machines capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography are decades away, the work required to update software, infrastructure and user behavior will be measured in years, not months.
And that’s a significant amount of time for quantum computing research, funding, and hardware capabilities to develop in ways that could compress timelines faster than expected.
Bitcoin relies on elliptic curve cryptography to secure wallets and authorize transactions. In theory, sufficiently powerful quantum computers running Shor’s algorithm could derive private keys from exposed public keys, putting older address formats at risk.
The network would not collapse overnight, but coins that have already disclosed their public keys could become vulnerable.
Bitcoin changes take time
Bitcoin’s conservative governance model—one of its core strengths—also makes major transitions difficult.
Any move towards quantum-resistant cryptography would require new address formats, wallet upgrades, exchange support and, crucially, user action. Billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin would have to be moved voluntarily.
That reality helps explain why some investors remain uneasy. Big allocators don’t need quantum computers to exist tomorrow to worry about the problem today.
For institutions that hold bitcoin as a long-term asset, the question is whether the network can coordinate major changes before they are forced.
Proposals like BIP-360 aim to address this gap by introducing quantum-resistant address types and allowing a gradual transition over time. But no timeline has been set and no migration has begun.
For now, the quantum risk is still theoretical. Lopp’s point isn’t that Bitcoin is in danger—it’s that the preparation, if ever necessary, will take longer than the debate itself.
