Quantum computing and the threat it poses to encrypted blockchains has once again crept into online conversations about bitcoin, raising concerns that it represents a long-term risk that investors and developers still struggle to speak in the same language.
The latest flare-up in debate came following comments from prominent Bitcoin developers rejecting claims that quantum computers pose any real risks to the network for the foreseeable future. Their point of view is simple: that machines capable of cracking Bitcoin cryptography do not exist today and are unlikely to do so for decades.
Adam Back, co-founder of Bitcoin infrastructure company Blockstream, described the risk as effectively non-existent in the near term, calling quantum computing “ridiculously early” and plagued by unresolved research problems. Even in the 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 evaluation is widely shared among protocol developers. Critics, however, say the problem is not the schedule, but a 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 crash 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 threat actors.
For now, that threat remains theoretical. However, governments and large companies 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 like Cloudflare and Apple have begun implementing quantum-resistant systems.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, has not yet agreed on a concrete transition plan. And it is in that gap where the market’s concern is infiltrating.
Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, said in X that the disconnect between developers and investors is becoming difficult to ignore. Capital, he maintains, is less concerned about whether quantum attacks will arrive in five years or 15, 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
The developers respond that Bitcoin can adapt long before any real danger appears. There are proposals to migrate users towards quantum-resistant address formats and, in extreme cases, restrict spending of legacy wallets. All this would be more preventive 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 provides users with a means to transfer their coins to wallets that are based on different mathematical algorithms, which are believed to be much more resistant to cracking by quantum computers.
BIP360 describes three new signing methods, each offering different levels of protection, so the network can change gradually rather than forcing a sudden update. Nothing would change automatically. Users would opt-in over time by transferring funds 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 crypto standard could take years, involving software upgrades, infrastructure changes, and user coordination.
Starting early, they say, reduces the risk of being forced to make hasty decisions later.
However, conservative Bitcoin governance becomes a challenge when addressing long-term threats that require early consensus.
Quantum computing is not currently an existential threat to Bitcoin and no credible timeline suggests otherwise. However, as capital becomes more institutional and long-term, even distant risks require clearer responses.
Until developers and investors converge on a shared framework, the quantum question will continue to persist, not as a panic, but as a silent friction weighing on sentiment.
