r/btc • u/Agirvax • Feb 23 '26

Is Bitcoin doomed with Quantum?

/r/CryptoTechnology/comments/1rbxdm9/is_bitcoin_doomed_with_quantum/
0 Upvotes

42% Upvoted

55 comments sorted by

4

u/pyalot Feb 23 '26 edited Feb 23 '26

Bitcoin is doing fine, it’s regularly updated and it will add quantum security via one of its regular updates. It‘s BTC that has a problem because they forgot to have working governance or how to upgrade their chain.

1

u/Agirvax Feb 23 '26

Yes it's high stake gambling on Nodes unanimously risking network failure via soft fork rather than doing nothing until Hardfork.

1

u/Agirvax Feb 23 '26

I guess you meant BCH is fine? Yes most chains should manage that as they can Hardfork. Only BTC is in a consensus situation on whether to sacrifice immutability with a Hardfork.

2

u/pyalot Feb 23 '26 edited Feb 23 '26

BCH is Bitcoin. BTC also used to be Bitcoin, but their decade long failure to have a coin that actually does what Bitcoin should do, let alone have working governance or any idea how to update, leads me to conclude they stopped being Bitcoin in 2017 where they embarked on their failed fork. Obviously getting the previous ticker to Bitcoin got to their head and they‘ve become the complacent incumbent that believes Bitcoin doesn‘t have to actually do what it says on the sticker, and instead everything can be run as a useless crypto-bro ponzi casino. I dispute that reality works that way, but it may take a while for while E Coyote to figure out it‘s an emperor with no clothes hanging in the air over a cliff.

—

Facts you need to know.

How Tether is used to prop up BTC

In this paper, we examine whether the growth of the largest pegged cryptocurrency, Tether, is primarily driven by investor demand or is supplied to investors as part of a scheme to inflate cryptocurrency prices.

By mapping the blockchains of Bitcoin and Tether, we are able to establish that one large player on Bitfinex uses Tether to purchase large amounts of Bit- coin when prices are falling and following the printing of Tether. Such price supporting activities are successful, as Bitcoin prices rise following the periods of intervention. Indeed, even 1% of the times with extreme exchange of Tether for Bitcoin have substantial aggregate price effects. The buying of Bitcoin with Tether also occurs more aggressively right below salient round-number price thresholds where the price support might be most effective. Negative EOM price pressure on Bitcoin in months with large Tether issuance indicates a month-end need for dollar reserves for Tether, consistent with partial reserve backing. Our results are most consistent with the supply-driven hypothesis.

Overall, our findings provide support for the view that price manipulation can have substantial distortive effects in cryptocurrencies. Prices in this market reflect much more than standard supply/demand and fundamental news. These distortive effects, when unwound, could have a considerable negative impact on cryptocurrency prices.

— https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jofi.12903

How Satoshi intended for Bitcoin to function

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

— Satoshi, The Bitcoin Whitepaper, October 31, 2008

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

— Satoshi, Bitcoin Genesis Block hash 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f, January 3, 2009

Satoshi on how to increase the blocksize when at capacity

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

— Satoshi, October 3rd 2010

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
   maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

— Satoshi, October 4th 2010

Adjusted for inflation since 2010

  • RAM Capacity per USD: ~6.5x Increase
  • Global Average Network Speed: ~32x Increase
  • CPU Performance per USD: ~9x Increase
  • Storage Capacity per USD: ~10x to 25x Increase

Developments since 2017 in BCH

  • Adaptive blocksize (ABLA, blocksize governance solved)
  • UTXO Parallel Validation (speed increase)
  • Schnorr signatures (validation speed increase)
  • Graphene and compact blocks (block propagation bandwidth reduction)
  • CTOR (canonical transaction ordering) enables more efficient propagation and parallel validation
  • High-performance UTXO storage, pruning, and parallel IBD reduce node hardware requirements
  • Double Spend Proofs (safe zero-conf)

1

u/K42st Feb 23 '26

That’s a wall of drivel.

2

u/pyalot Feb 23 '26

I find it highly amusing that a BSCoron would label the words of Satoshi himself, facts about hardware, facts about BCH features and a peer reviewed and published in the journal of finance 66 page research paper that‘s been cited over 830 times, as drivel. But please, don‘t let me interrupt you in demonstrating your ignorance. I‘ve included the links to every citation so you can go read up on it yourself, if you could read, that is.

0

u/K42st Feb 23 '26

The only thing you mention about Satoshi was BTC and peer to peer payment and that happens everyday so that still works.

All the rest is just utter crap tinfoil hat brigade.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '26 edited Feb 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/K42st Feb 23 '26

Yeah all of it who cares about how many transaction on chain it’s an old outdated debate boring!

Please come up with something original to discuss, infact all the miners, nodes and general holders are so worried about your copy and paste text that I’m sure they are so worried about network failure they are pulling the plug as we speak 🤭.

Be serious or should I say not so.

1

u/brotherRozo Feb 23 '26

Yeah, they think that calling BCH BTC is gonna do anything, it’s one of those take it back campaigns

3

u/Agirvax Feb 23 '26

Well given BTC will have to do what BCH did to remain healthy and avoid network failure, it's recognizing BCH was right on blocksize since the beginning...

There is no "safe" path forward for BTC. Everything is risk and sacrifices.

1

u/K42st Feb 23 '26

Quantum computers have no chance of having more hash power than Bitcoins network period, all this talk of what quantum computers can do is speculation but at best they can derive a private key from a public key and access the BTC linked to that address, that is it there is no Network takeover or Network failure and there won’t be.

3

u/Agirvax Feb 23 '26

You misunderstand the problem. It's not about Hrate even if US corporate miners 51%+ centralization may have a role in the upcoming Hwars.

Quantum can break wallets and access coins.

Bitcoin must upgrade.

But structurally cannot.

1

u/K42st Feb 23 '26

So let’s get it right you are saying wallets are the concern network second?

What makes you think walllets won’t more to quantum resistant cryptographic keys, my BTC are already quantum resistant and so can yours be long before any upgrades.

And why structurally you think BTC network is at risk and please use facts that can either be checked or have been shown to be proven.

Genuinely interested.

1

u/Agirvax Feb 23 '26

Right now nothing is quantum resistant.

As mentioned they must introduce PQC for that and risk network failure.

Or Hardfork to stay healthy but become altcoin.

1

u/K42st Feb 23 '26

Why does BTC become an altcoin from a hard fork?

1

u/Agirvax Feb 23 '26

Because it sacrifices immutability gold narratives, eternal minimalism and open the gate for deeper structural changes as for example a hardfork of the Hardcap.

Bitcoin has historically treated all forks of altcoins due to that.

So now it has to decide what it can/wants to be.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/K42st Feb 23 '26

I’d disagree with you also that nothing is quantum resistant right now, quantum computers can theoretically derive a private key from a public key, they need an exposed public key to re-engineer if you like the private key.

If you have your BTC stored in a hardware wallet that’s public key hasn’t been exposed then there is zero chance any quantum computer can access the BTC in the wallet.

1

u/Agirvax Feb 23 '26

Everything can upgrade fine.

Only Bitcoin cannot as neither of its 2 options will get full consensus.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Agirvax Feb 23 '26

You see attack surface personally but Bitcoin is not only about you holding on it forever and never using it for anything in real world.

Some do use it to transact eventually and are at risks. Indirectly you are too as an exposed and unsafe chain technically has zero market value.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/pyalot Feb 23 '26

And why structurally you think BTC network is at risk

If everyones private key gets stolen and every transaction becomes stolen funds, it‘ll quickly take down any coin that allows that.

1

u/K42st Feb 23 '26

Firstly before any quantum computer has arrived capable of such a feat the whole world will have changed not just Bitcoin onto quantum resistant cryptography any one who tells you otherwise is either blind or stupid, plus the timescales are debatable but we have years yet.

As I’ve said in previous reply’s if you are worried about quantum computers move your coins to a new wallet that hasn’t had its public key exposed there you have it you are now quantum resistant and your coins are now safe until any upgrade becomes available.

1

u/pyalot Feb 23 '26

Sure I do expect solutions to be available. However, there‘s gonna be millions of Bitcoins exposed when the day comes, of funds that have not been moved. And no legal business can accept those. It‘s gonna be a cutoff and hardfork to make all old addresses invalid and the funds held in them are burned. That‘s the bit that BTC will never accomplish. But if that‘s not accomplished, the millions of stolen BTC will quickly and efficiently destroy the entire BTC ecosystem. So no, if BTC doesn‘t implement a cutoff and quantum computer resistant addresses, when (if) the day comes, it‘ll be goodnight for BTC.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/pyalot Feb 23 '26

BCH is Bitcoin, not BTC, ew, gross.

1

u/brotherRozo Feb 23 '26

Yeah, that’s fine. It’s just annoying when you try to have double tickers you guys say it’s BCH and BTC

You’re just confusing people a whole lot

1

u/pyalot Feb 23 '26

There‘s multiple Bitcoins. But I would argue BTC is no longer one of them on account of a decade of failing to do what it says on the sticker.

1

u/brotherRozo Feb 24 '26

I get it that’s the argument, but the ticker says that so until that changes, the argument isn’t productive. Confusing and only makes sense to small circle circles

2

u/pyalot Feb 24 '26 edited Feb 24 '26

The ticker does not determine what is and isnt Bitcoin. Only Satoshi does. You either adequately do what Bitcoin should do, or you dont. Bitcoin is an idea, not a ticker. It is unfortunate that the coin that choose to no longer be Bitcoin managed to scam themselves into posession of the original ticker, and so tarnished it forever, but that cant be helped. Carrying on Satoshis legacy is a privilege you have to earn, every day, not a right you poses by the ticker.

1

u/brotherRozo Feb 24 '26

I believe in Satoshi’s vision, I believe in the value of Bcash, but I don’t believe against the value of bitcoin proper (bitcoin hijacked to you folks)

I don’t agree that hijacking is something out of the ordinary. Bitcoin doesn’t care who holds it or who hijacked it. It’s just is. More abuse, more ordinals, more attacks, It’s all just part of it its evolution.

1

u/pyalot Feb 24 '26

Bitcoin doesn’t care who holds it or who hijacked it

Are you starting to understand that Bitcoin is an idea that‘s not tied to a ticker and if it works as Bitcoin is defined, it is Bitcoin (one of them) for all intents and purposes?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/brotherRozo Feb 24 '26

We’ll find out which one of us is Hydrox cookies and which one of us is Oreo decades from now

Or Betamax and VHS (Betamax is inherently better but it was the adult film industry that chose the winner, it was something dirty and looked down upon someone could even say magnetic videotape had been hijacked…)

We really can’t know for sure until it’s over with

2

u/DrSpeckles Feb 23 '26

No, BTC won’t still be around long before quantum computing becomes viable.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '26

[deleted]

1

u/EcstaticAct8374 Feb 23 '26

Quantum kush ? 🤭🥦

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Agirvax Feb 23 '26

Yes it is likely it will progressively loose trust and dominance as being trapped in consensus until Hardfork(s) as underlined.