Bitcoin’s quantum debate is resurfacing, and markets are starting to notice

Quantum computing and the threat it poses to encrypted blockchains has once again crept into online bitcoin conversations, raising concerns that it poses a long-term risk that investors and developers are still struggling to talk about in the same language.

The latest flare-up in the debate followed comments from prominent Bitcoin developers pushing back against claims that quantum computers pose any real risk to the network in the foreseeable future. Their view is straightforward: that machines capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography do not exist today and are unlikely to for decades.

Adam Back, co-founder of Bitcoin infrastructure firm Blockstream, described the risk as effectively nonexistent in the near term, calling quantum computing “ridiculously early” and riddled with unresolved research problems. Even in a worst-case scenario, Back argued, Bitcoin’s design would not allow coins to be instantly stolen across the network.

Back’s assessment is broadly shared among protocol developers. Critics, however, say the problem isn’t the timeline, but it’s the 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 big numbers — could derive private keys from exposed public keys, putting a portion of existing coins at risk.

The network wouldn’t collapse overnight, but funds sitting in older address formats — including Satoshi Nakamoto’s 1.1 million bitcoins, which have been untouched since 2010 — could become vulnerable to threat actors

For now, that threat remains theoretical. Yet governments and large enterprises are already acting as if quantum disruption is inevitable. The U.S. has outlined plans to phase out classical cryptography by the mid-2030s, while companies such as Cloudflare and Apple have begun rolling out quantum-resistant systems.

Bitcoin, by contrast, has not yet agreed on a concrete transition plan. And that gap is where market unease is creeping in.

Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, said on X that the disconnect between developers and investors is becoming hard to ignore. Capital, he argues, is less concerned with whether quantum attacks arrive in five years or 15, and more focused on whether Bitcoin has a credible path forward if cryptography standards change.

Plans to fight back

Developers counter that Bitcoin can adapt well before any real danger appears. Proposals exist to migrate users toward quantum-resistant address formats and, in extreme cases, restrict spending from legacy wallets. All of this would be preventive rather 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 into wallets that rely on different mathematical algorithms, which are believed to be far more resistant to cracking by quantum computers.

BIP360 outlines three new signature methods, each offering varying levels of protection, so the network can gradually shift rather than force a sudden upgrade. Nothing would change automatically. Users would opt in over time by moving funds to the new address format.

Supporters of BIP360 argue the proposal is less about predicting when quantum computers arrive and more about preparation. Moving Bitcoin to a new cryptographic standard could take years, involving software updates, infrastructure changes, and user coordination.

Starting early, they say, reduces the risk of being forced into rushed decisions later.

However, Bitcoin’s conservative governance becomes a challenge when addressing long-horizon 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 answers.

Until developers and investors converge on a shared framework, the quantum question will continue to linger — not as a panic, but as a quiet friction weighing on sentiment.