Bitcoin developers are working on a way to combat quantum computing. It is more difficult to determine whether or not the Bitcoin network will be able to agree upon a solution in a timely manner. The quantum computing threat to Bitcoin is not primarily a technical problem — it is a political one.
These are the main arguments in a recent commentary published Guillaume Girard is a Venture Associate at UTXO Management. This investment company, a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc., focuses on Bitcoin. The article titled “The Bitcoin Revolution” was published in the Financial Times. “Bitcoin and the Quantum Threat: A Non-Technical Guide,” Girard argues that while a cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC) does not yet exist and may never reach the threshold required to break Bitcoin’s encryption, the community must act now — because the governance process that governs any protocol change moves at the pace of a state legislature.
Bitcoin’s safety rests upon elliptic curve cryptographyThis protects private keys which control access to wallets. Shor’s algorithm, when run on a powerful enough quantum computer, could be used to derive the private key of a public key. This would allow theft at large scale. Google’s Quantum AI group published research in March indicating that a machine with fewer than 500,000 physical qubits — far below earlier estimates of 10 million — could potentially break this encryption, with Google’s own internal target for post-quantum readiness set at 2029. Around 1.7 Million BTC are currently in Pay-to Public-Key (P2PK), where the public keys on chain remain permanently visible. This makes them vulnerable targets.
Bitcoin is getting a quantum-solution
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360 is a proposal by Hunter Beast. introduces A new type of output called Pay-to Merkle Root (P2MR), which removes the exposure of public keys from standard transaction. This proposal is currently being reviewed and has been integrated into Bitcoin’s development repository.
Jameson Lopp authored BIP-361 as a companion. maps A three-phase transition away from signatures vulnerable schemes. Phase B could, however, freeze the coins stored in wallets if they do not migrate by a specified timeframe of five years.
A separate proposal called Hourglass would allow quantum attackers to move stolen coins only in limited batches — potentially one BTC per block — throttling the economic damage and transferring fee revenue to miners.
It is the coins themselves that are the most difficult to migrate. These include lost wallets, holders who have stopped using their bitcoins and a total of 1.1 Million BTC. Satoshi Nakamoto. Girard proposes two solutions that each have serious disadvantages.
The first would burn coins in quantum-vulnerable addresses after a deadline — an effective fix that critics say sets a dangerous censorship precedent for a protocol built on neutrality. Hourglass accepts theft but limits the amount of coins stolen to reduce the impact on the market and price.
Neither option is clean, and both require the same thing: broad social consensus across users, miners, developers, and — for the first time — large institutional holders like BlackRock.
Already, institutions are reacting
Discussion has now moved past developer mailing list. Jefferies removed Christopher Wood, a global equity analyst, cites quantum risk to be a possible long-term danger for Bitcoin’s cryptographic base.
Michael Saylor, Strategy announced Bitcoin Security Program, which will work with the larger security community in order to be prepared for quantum technology. The program frames the problem as a technical challenge and not an emergency. Citi’s cybersecurity team has put a multi-trillion-dollar price tag on the quantum threat to crypto broadly.
Girard comes to a measured conclusion. The true contest lies between the timelines for a CRQC which can destroy Bitcoin and those for the Community who want a Soft Fork. Based on current data, he believes Bitcoin is on track — but notes that if developer action is perceived as too slow by sovereign and institutional buyers, those stakeholders have both the motive and the financial weight to accelerate consensus outside existing structures.
Inaction is not acceptable by governments or asset managers, who are now the major buyers of Bitcoin. Most experts still consider a practical attack at least several years away, but as Girard puts it, the fog of war makes the timeline unclear — and in this battle, waiting for certainty is itself a risk.
Bitcoin Magazine is published in the United States by BTC Inc.
“This article is not financial advice.”
“Always do your own research before making any type of investment.”
“ItsDailyCrypto is not responsible for any activities you perform outside ItsDailyCrypto.”
Source: bitcoinmagazine.com
