Simply put
- CoinShares indicated that while there could be a theoretical risk from quantum computing to Bitcoin, this isn’t something we should worry about right away.
- Researchers believe that a vast number of qubits would be necessary, far exceeding what we currently have with today’s quantum technology.
- The firm suggested that future approaches should focus on gradual upgrades instead of drastic protocol shifts.
Quantum computing might not be as pressing a threat to Bitcoin as some have suggested; any actual danger could be years down the line.
This perspective comes from recent research notes where CoinShares argues that although Bitcoin’s encryption might be potentially vulnerable to future advancements in quantum computing, the present-day technology is not posing any real danger.
“Bitcoin’s quantum vulnerability is more of a consideration for the future than an urgent crisis, allowing ample time for adjustment,” stated the researchers.
Quantum attacks rely on advanced quantum computers that could decipher the cryptographic keys safeguarding Bitcoin and other blockchains, enabling attackers to derive private keys from public data.
Researchers contend that a direct assault on Bitcoin is not a near-term issue because breaking its fundamental encryption would necessitate quantum machines that we don’t have today.
Andy Chou, co-founder and CEO of Blocksec, mentioned, “Looking at it from a cryptographic and engineering standpoint, the quantum risk to Bitcoin isn’t an immediate threat, but it’s something to consider in the medium to long term.” Chou added that the industry has significant time to prepare and enhance defenses, even under optimistic projections regarding quantum advancements.
The concept of post-quantum cryptography has been undergoing rigorous international standardization for years, with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) already finalizing standards. The first set is expected to be completed in 2024.
He noted this standard includes several quantum-resistant encryption and signature algorithms that are ready for deployment, along with additional algorithms that need more in-depth backup and guidance.
Chou referenced historical occurrences like the Y2K issue, which was feared to cause widespread system failures at the start of the year 2000, yet did not end up being as catastrophic due to preemptive measures taken over the years.
In terms of quantum threats, an attacker would theoretically need millions of qubits—far more than current capabilities—to crack the key quickly, according to CoinShares’ estimates.
Researchers estimate even the most sophisticated quantum computers could be 100,000 to 100,000 times too weak to present a real-world threat, with significant risks potentially starting in the 2030s.
While older Bitcoin addresses can remain vulnerable for extended periods, executing an attack on active transactions demands computations that are currently beyond reach.
CoinShares pointed out that while there are theoretical quantum risks to Bitcoin linked to algorithms that may expose cryptographic keys, these threats remain limited and unlikely to materialize soon.
The firm calculated that about 1.7 million BTC, roughly 8% of total supply, exists in traditional P2PK addresses with exposed public keys, while newer address types conceal the keys until depleted, not affecting Bitcoin’s supply or proof of work.
Even in a worst-case scenario, CoinShares estimated only about 10,000 BTC could realistically be compromised and sold, suggesting the market impact would be minimal.
They also caution that while aggressive solutions could provide quicker protective measures, they carry risks such as software bugs and impairing Bitcoin’s neutrality, thus emphasizing the need for a gradual, voluntary transition.
Cameron Lu, COO of the prediction market protocol functionSPACE, added, “The threat of quantum computing to Bitcoin is real, but it’s often misunderstood. The quantum capabilities that could undermine Bitcoin’s encryption would also impact the encryption for banking, military communications, and most other digital infrastructures.”
