Specialist viewpoints conflict concerning the severity and timeframe of the impending hazard. Through this lack of consensus, the high degree of uncertainty currently surrounding the market is highlighted.
For a long time, cautions that quantum processors might “compromise Bitcoin” surfaced in news reports and across social platforms, though numerous observers disregarded them as mere hysteria. Tangible quantum hardware equipped to execute such intrusions simply had not been developed, and the hazards appeared distant. Through this historical lens, the previous sense of security is contrasted with modern technological shifts.
Lately, the sentiment has transformed. In mid-January, Christopher Wood—the global head of equity strategy at the multi-billion dollar investment firm Jefferies—reportedly eliminated a 10% Bitcoin position from his influential “Greed & Fear” model portfolio. This action, which cleared his entire BTC exposure, was taken due to anxieties that long-term breakthroughs in quantum technology might eventually compromise the integrity of the network. Through this strategic divestment, the growing gravity of future cryptographic vulnerabilities is demonstrated.
In early February 2026, the cryptocurrency giant Coinbase established a specialized advisory council, incorporating both digital asset and quantum experts, to evaluate potential vulnerabilities and formulate transition strategies toward post-quantum-resistant signatures. However, the pressing nature and actual validity of the quantum computing hazard to the Bitcoin network are debated by industry observers.
Understanding How the Bitcoin Blockchain Operates
Bitcoin’s ledger operates with total transparency, rendering every transfer observable, while cryptographic hashes and signatures protect asset possession and systemic consistency. Quantum processors are unable to retrieve concealed information because none exists within the architecture. However, a latent hazard resides within the cryptographic proofs—termed signatures—which, regarding hash-derived accounts, permit the expenditure of tokens only after the disclosure of a public key on the network. Through this mechanism, the vulnerability of exposed credentials is emphasized.
The significance of this mechanism lies in the fact that the majority of Bitcoin addresses do not represent the actual public key, but rather cryptographic hashes of it. Frequently, the true public key only manifests on the ledger during the expenditure of assets, which is precisely when they become vulnerable. Consequently, specific tokens are potentially jeopardized during a transaction, whereas others—though not every instance—maintain their security against signature-based intrusions until their public credentials are broadcast to the network. Through this structural delay, the window of opportunity for an exploit is limited.
Unlikely to Happen This Decade
Cais Manai, CPO and co-founder of TEN Protocol—a Layer 2 network engineered for privacy-centric smart contracts—informed The Defiant that for the majority of Bitcoin’s existence, its cryptographic foundations were regarded as practically invincible. Through this long-standing confidence, the perceived permanence of the network’s security is emphasized.
Manai noted that quantum computing represents the initial significant technological threat to Bitcoin’s status as “digital gold,” though he maintained that the hazard remains far-off. He clarified that while the risk is not immediate for this cycle or likely this decade, it falls well within the timeframe of anyone viewing Bitcoin as a long-term store of value. Through this observation, the conflict between digital scarcity and future computational power is highlighted.
“Not this cycle. Probably not this decade. But well within the investment horizon of anyone calling Bitcoin ‘digital gold.’”
In principle, a private key could be extracted from an exposed public key by a quantum computer, enabling the fabrication of a signature to misappropriate assets. In this event, tokens whose credentials have remained undisclosed would be preserved. Through this distinction, the varying levels of risk among different address types are evidenced.
Regarding specific Bitcoin address formats, the public key linked to that account is disclosed indefinitely once a single expenditure occurs. Various address architectures dictate the exact moment credentials manifest on the ledger. For antiquated P2PK formats, public keys are broadcast to the blockchain instantaneously, whereas P2PKH and P2WPKH varieties (identifiable by “1…” or “bc1q…” prefixes) unveil them only during the transaction process. Through this structural design, the timing of potential exposure is determined.
Additionally, multi-signature configurations and Taproot advancements introduce further complexity. Within Taproot architectures, the public key is incorporated directly into the output without the use of hashing, which signifies that it becomes publicly accessible immediately. Through this transparency, the security profile of modern Bitcoin scripts is altered.
Can Bitcoin Withstand Quantum Computing Threats?
Assessments regarding the vulnerabilities faced by Bitcoin fluctuate. Chaincode Labs—a prominent research and development entity for the network—projected in its May 2025 analysis that “roughly 20-50% of the total Bitcoin supply (4-10 million BTC), representing hundreds of billions in value, is susceptible to theft because private keys can be derived from public keys.” Through this alarming statistic, the systemic risk posed by future computational breakthroughs is underscored.
Manai explained to The Defiant that these specific assets will transform into “low-hanging fruit” once a cryptographically pertinent quantum processor is developed. Through this vivid comparison, the extreme vulnerability of unshielded legacy coins is illustrated.
“Mining acceleration via quantum is mostly a sideshow. Private-key theft is the real existential vector,”
Manai said.
This implies that approximately half of the Bitcoin currently in circulation remains secure for the time being. Accounts that have avoided address reuse or haven’t disclosed their credentials are considered significantly less susceptible, and users are able to transfer their assets to addresses that reveal keys only during a transaction to ensure protection. Through these proactive measures, the safety of private holdings is maintained.
Why Timing Matters Most
However, the primary hurdle involves the scheduling of governance alignment. Even though post-quantum signature protocols have already been developed, the enhancement of a network as extensive as Bitcoin necessitates global cooperation. Through this massive logistical requirement, the difficulty of achieving a timely consensus is highlighted.
“No one serious thinks quantum breaks Bitcoin tomorrow. The real risk isn’t timing certainty. It’s timing asymmetry. Bitcoin upgrades take 5-10 years to coordinate globally. Quantum hardware progress is nonlinear. If quantum arrives early, damage happens first, patches come later.”
Manai explained:
Could Other Blockchains Face Similar Risks?
Alternative ecosystems are similarly preparing for a post-quantum era. For example, within the previous week, the Ethereum Layer 2 network Optimism detailed a ten-year strategy to overhaul user wallets for the support of quantum-resistant signatures. Through this long-term framework, the necessity for proactive defensive planning is demonstrated.
“The good news: the OP Stack is already architected to swap in new signature schemes via hardforks. Once the right post‑quantum (PQ) scheme is chosen, upgrading is a coordination problem, not a redesign,”
the post reads.
In the meantime, Ethereum pioneer Vitalik Buterin has also recently emphasized the necessity for quantum-proof encryption on the Ethereum base layer. Through this high-level advocacy, the urgency of safeguarding the network’s long-term viability is underscored.
