Simply put
- Quantum computers could undermine blockchain security, particularly by exploiting vulnerabilities in private key encryption using Shor’s algorithm.
- Blockchain networks that utilize EDDSA, like Solana and SUI, have an easier path to upgrade and remain resistant to quantum threats.
- Older networks, such as Bitcoin, face immediate dangers and must navigate costly upgrades to protect their assets.
Quantum computing has the potential to disrupt the cryptocurrency landscape, which currently secures trillions of dollars. A recent report from Mysten Labs indicates that not all blockchains are equally prepared for this impending challenge.
The report, released Wednesday, suggests that blockchain networks employing the EDDSA signature scheme—such as Solana and SUI—are better equipped to handle quantum risks than older networks which rely on the ECDSA system, like Bitcoin and Ethereum. These older platforms face significant encryption and logistical hurdles in implementing post-Quantum security measures.
Kostas Chalkias, co-founder and chief cryptographer of Mysten Labs, notes that as more entities adopt Bitcoin, the urgency for meeting security standards against quantum threats is growing. He mentioned how governments globally are aware of these risks, indicating that legacy algorithms like ECDSA and RSA may need to be phased out by 2030 or 2035.
Chalkias added that if blockchains are going to support national financial systems—like CBDCs or ETFs—embracing post-Quantum cryptocurrency standards becomes critical for sustained reliability and broader acceptance.
The Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EDDSA) is a newer and more efficient digital signature method that mitigates common weaknesses found in ECDSA, such as issues with random number generation and potential security leaks.
Currently, Bitcoin and Ethereum depend on ECDSA for their transaction security, and an upgrade to quantum-resistant algorithms is needed sooner rather than later.
🚨 Speed: SUI Research has just announced a breakthrough that benefits some blockchains. This advancement works in SUI, Solana, and others that use EDDSA, but unfortunately, not in Bitcoin and Ethereum.
This is the paper: [paper link]
– Kostas Kryptos (@kostascrypto) July 28, 2025
Chalkias emphasized that Quantum Computing represents an existential threat to cryptographic measures, suggesting that, if these technologies advance sufficiently, they could dismantle the foundational encryption employed by most existing blockchains.
The core threat arises from quantum machines’ capability to efficiently solve complex problems using Shor’s algorithm, potentially unraveling the security of systems like RSA and ECDSA by reversing private keys derived from public blockchain data. Intriguingly, even possessing a private key may not guarantee ownership in a post-Quantum setting, depending on how the key was generated and the exposure of related data over time.
Experts like Ahmed Banafa from San Jose State University advocate for early preparations, although he noted that quantum computers currently lack the power to pose a direct threat. He pointed out that a hard fork would be necessary for Bitcoin to adopt new standards, which would complicate user interactions, including changing wallet addresses and transferring funds.
Banafa observed that such a hard fork is unlikely, echoing the contentious history within the Ethereum community when it split following the events of 2015. He also raised concerns over the widespread existence of Bitcoin and Ethereum wallets since their inceptions, stating that a failure to secure or upgrade these accounts could jeopardize their holders while potentially leading to blame directed towards the network.
Mysten Labs mentioned that if Bitcoin had begun with EDDSA, even wallets from the time of Nakamoto could remain secure against quantum threats. Yet, Banafa pointed out that when Bitcoin launched in 2009, quantum computing wasn’t a major consideration. In retrospect, technological assumptions made in 2019 about SHA-256 had underestimated its vulnerability, highlighting the unpredictable nature of technological advancements.
