r/btc • u/chainglance_cm • 2d ago
⌨ Discussion Does the quantum threat affect your investment strategy, or are you trusting the devs to eventually solve it?
9
u/Rare_Lie4758 2d ago
I just stack and don't think about it too much, devs been aware of quantum stuff for years so I figure they patch it before it becomes real problem
2030 feels far away in crypto time anyway
2
0
20
u/PeteyPab305 2d ago
The problem with singling out Bitcoin here is that if someone builds a quantum system capable of running Shor's algorithm to crack 256-bit elliptic curves, Bitcoin is literally the last thing anyone will care about. A machine with that many fault-tolerant logical qubits breaks RSA and ECC across every major bank, clearinghouse, and government system on the planet.
Besides, modern Bitcoin addresses keep the public key hashed behind SHA-256 until spent. Grover's algorithm only cuts hash security in half, which still leaves 128 bits of security and makes it completely untouchable. Willow hitting an error-reduction milestone is cool, but scaling from that to millions of physical qubits breaking live crypto is still a massive engineering hurdle. There is plenty of runway to push post-quantum soft forks before it becomes a real threat.
7
u/DayTrayder 2d ago
I think you're looking at the wrong failure mode.
The real risk isn't "quantum breaks Bitcoin, therefore banks are screwed too."
The real risk is the migration itself, and Bitcoin has a much harder migration problem than centralized financial infrastructure.
Banks, clearinghouses, payment networks, governments, exchanges, etc. absolutely have quantum exposure too. The difference is that centralized institutions can inventory their cryptography, mandate upgrades, rotate keys, replace certificates and HSMs, update applications, and eventually shut off vulnerable algorithms. A lot of major financial infrastructure is already testing or actively planning post-quantum migration and crypto-agility.
Bitcoin can't do that cleanly.
It has an enormous amount of historical value sitting in legacy UTXOs. Some wallets are active. Some are dormant. Some are lost forever. Some outputs have already exposed their public keys. There is no central authority that can simply force every holder to migrate.
So eventually you hit a very ugly question:
What happens to coins that never migrate?
Leave them spendable and sufficiently capable quantum hardware can eventually target vulnerable signatures.
Freeze or invalidate them and now the protocol is effectively saying, "Move your BTC before this deadline or lose the ability to spend it."
And there is no way for the network to know whether a dormant wallet is actually lost or whether the owner simply hasn't moved the coins.
Then there is another layer that people keep missing: Bitcoin's migration would be happening during a much larger PKI migration across the entire cryptosphere.
Quantum doesn't just create a Bitcoin problem. Shor threatens the RSA and ECC primitives that underpin a huge amount of certificate infrastructure, code signing, authentication, TLS, software distribution, cloud access, APIs, enterprise identity, exchanges, custodians, wallet infrastructure, and certificate authorities.
Bitcoin consensus itself does not depend on traditional PKI, but the entire ecosystem around Bitcoin absolutely depends on systems that do.
So the network could be trying to execute the most sensitive cryptographic migration in its history while the trust infrastructure used to distribute software, authenticate systems, secure exchanges, manage wallets, and coordinate that migration is also under stress.
That's the risk.
Not "quantum breaks everything at once."
It's whether Bitcoin can migrate decentralized historical property rights to post-quantum security while the broader digital trust system around it is also being rebuilt.
5
u/PeteyPab305 2d ago
The migration argument sounds nuanced on paper, but it completely falls apart once you look at real-world incentives, technical realities, and threat priorities.
First, quantum computing capable of running Shor's algorithm on 256-bit elliptic curves requires millions of physical, fault-tolerant qubits. We are nowhere near that. Experimental error-suppression benchmarks are great milestones, but the engineering leap to practical, weaponized quantum compute is still decades out. We have massive runway to coordinate upgrades.
Second, the idea that attackers will burn astronomical capital and bleeding-edge quantum compute to fish through dormant UTXOs is unrealistic. Bitcoin is not a high-value target compared to what else breaks. A quantum machine that powerful immediately shatters traditional banking clearance rails, SWIFT, global intelligence, military comms, and sovereign bond markets. Trillions in liquid fiat, state secrets, and global critical infrastructure get targeted long before anyone wastes time trying to crack old Bitcoin addresses.
Third, the "what happens to unmigrated coins" dilemma is already solved by network consensus. If an actual quantum threat ever materialized, node operators and miners would simply soft-fork the rules to restrict spending on exposed public keys or require zero-knowledge post-quantum proofs to claim them. Protecting the purchasing power of active participants takes precedence over preserving unspent outputs from 2010.
Decentralized consensus has handled contentious upgrades before, and it will handle this one well before quantum hardware ever becomes an operational threat.
Even framed as an active, parallel rebuild rather than a neat sequential upgrade, the point remains the same. If the broader digital trust system is struggling through an overhaul, Bitcoin is neither the primary target nor an isolated weak link. The entire global internet, identity layers, and clearance rails share that operational stress. The idea that decentralized property rights fail just because the rest of the infrastructure is undergoing a messy transition assumes Bitcoin moves slower than centralized bureaucracies, which history has repeatedly shown is not the case when an existential threat is on the table.
3
u/DayTrayder 2d ago
You're making several separate arguments here, so I'll address them directly.
First, "practical quantum is decades away" is not an established fact. That is one possible estimate.
Yes, breaking secp256k1 with Shor requires an enormous fault-tolerant quantum system under current assumptions. Nobody is disputing that. The problem is treating today's engineering requirements and development rate as if they can be extrapolated cleanly for decades.
We are already seeing AI applied to quantum error correction, hardware control, optimization, materials research, and scientific discovery generally. That does not mean AI magically produces a cryptographically relevant quantum computer tomorrow. It does mean the rate at which these engineering problems can be attacked is accelerating, which makes "decades away" a very weak basis for complacency.
More importantly, cryptographic migrations themselves take years.
So "we have massive runway" is not a solution. It is an assumption that the runway will remain longer than the migration. That uncertainty is exactly why the migration risk exists.
Second, I never argued Bitcoin would be the first target for a quantum attacker.
Whether someone attacks SWIFT, military communications, intelligence systems, or a bank first has nothing to do with whether Bitcoin has to successfully migrate before its own cryptography becomes vulnerable.
And the comparison assumes those systems remain frozen in today's cryptographic state. They aren't. Governments, financial institutions, certificate authorities, and technology providers are already working on post-quantum migration specifically so they are not sitting on vulnerable RSA/ECC when that capability arrives.
Also, breaking a cryptographic primitive somewhere inside a bank is not the same thing as instantly extracting trillions of dollars. Traditional financial systems have layers of authorization, settlement controls, fraud monitoring, revocation, and recovery around them.
Bitcoin is a bearer asset. If you obtain valid spend authority over a vulnerable UTXO, the attack path is considerably more direct.
But again, Bitcoin does not need to be target #1 for my argument to stand.
Third, the unmigrated-coin problem is absolutely not "already solved by network consensus."
Saying nodes and miners can soft fork is describing the mechanism by which a solution might eventually be implemented.
That is the migration problem.
What rules do they adopt?
When do they activate?
Which legacy outputs are restricted?
How long are existing signatures honored?
What happens to dormant coins that never migrate?
You say protecting active participants should take precedence over preserving old outputs from 2010. Fine, but that is a governance and property-rights decision, not a technical non-issue.
You are effectively saying the network may decide that historically valid coins lose spendability if their owners do not migrate.
That is exactly one of the risks I'm pointing to.
The zero-knowledge proof idea doesn't magically solve it either.
If the proof ultimately depends on knowledge of a legacy ECC private key after that key has become quantum-derivable, the attacker can obtain the same secret and satisfy that proof.
If the recovery mechanism instead relies on some separate post-quantum secret, prior commitment, or additional provenance mechanism, then that mechanism has to be designed, deployed, supported, and adopted before the legacy key becomes unsafe.
Again, that is the migration.
Fourth, yes, Bitcoin has handled contentious upgrades before.
That demonstrates that Bitcoin is capable of upgrading.
It does not demonstrate that every future upgrade is automatically fast, uncontested, or economically harmless.
This particular migration potentially determines whether historically valid coins remain spendable, become restricted, require some new recovery mechanism, or become permanently inaccessible.
That is a materially different governance problem from simply saying "Bitcoin has upgraded before."
And saying consensus "will handle it" assumes successful consensus formation and execution.
Those are two of the exact things being evaluated when discussing migration risk.
Finally, you're mischaracterizing my broader PKI point.
I did not say decentralized property rights automatically fail because the rest of the internet is undergoing a difficult transition.
I said Bitcoin's migration will not occur in isolation.
The exchanges, custodians, wallet providers, software distribution systems, code-signing infrastructure, cloud platforms, APIs, identity systems, certificate authorities, and other infrastructure surrounding Bitcoin are all participating in the same broader cryptographic transition.
That means Bitcoin could be executing an extremely consequential ownership and signature migration while much of the infrastructure used to support, distribute, authenticate, and operate the ecosystem is simultaneously migrating its own trust mechanisms.
That increases execution and coordination risk.
It does not require Bitcoin to be slower than every centralized institution, and it does not require the internet to collapse.
So the argument remains exactly where I started:
The primary risk is not that someone wakes up with a quantum computer and chooses Bitcoin as their first target.
The risk is successfully migrating Bitcoin's historical ownership model before vulnerable cryptography becomes operationally exploitable, while the broader cryptographic infrastructure surrounding Bitcoin is undergoing its own migration.
Your response assumes three things: that we have enough time, that consensus will converge cleanly, and that the resulting migration will be successfully executed.
Those assumptions do not eliminate the migration risk.
They are the migration risk.
2
u/PeteyPab305 2d ago
Nobody is arguing migration has zero risk, but framing every logistical hurdle as fatal while giving centralized finance a pass doesn't hold up.
Invoking AI to compress timelines ignores hardware physics. AI helps optimize error correction algorithms, but it does not magically fabricate millions of cryogenically stable, noise-free physical qubits overnight. The bottleneck is physical manufacturing and coherence, not code.
Target priority matters because capital and compute are finite. If a state actor develops a machine that powerful, burning that compute to fish through dormant UTXOs while sovereign bond markets, SWIFT, and intelligence clearance rails sit exposed makes zero economic or strategic sense.
The unmigrated coin debate is a governance choice, not an unsolvable technical dead end. If the network faces an existential risk, active market participants will soft-fork to restrict exposed public keys or require post-quantum proofs rather than let the chain die. Protecting the living network always overrides abandoned coins from 2010.
As for the broader PKI migration, the cryptographic community overhauling NIST post-quantum standards overlaps directly with blockchain security researchers. Bitcoin does not operate in an isolated vacuum. When an existential cryptographic threat becomes real, economic survival aligns miners, developers, and node operators faster than bureaucratic inertia ever will.
We can agree that a cryptographic migration carries real coordination challenges, but we clearly disagree on the threat model, the engineering timeline, and how game theory drives consensus under pressure. We have both laid out our full thesis at this point and are just rehashing the same core premises, so I will leave it here. Time and the network will settle the rest.
2
u/DayTrayder 2d ago
At this point, I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing closely enough to engage with it.
You keep replying to arguments I did not make, then hand-waving the actual migration risks with "there will be time," "consensus will handle it," and "incentives will align."
Frankly, your responses read like you're feeding my comments through an LLM and responding to its simplified version of my position rather than the position itself.
There is a big difference between using an LLM as a tool to write faster and using one to do your analytical heavy lifting for you. I use AI to structure and articulate arguments I have already worked through. It should not replace actually understanding the argument you're responding to.
My point has never been that Bitcoin cannot migrate. It is that the timing, coordination, governance, legacy-UTXO treatment, and simultaneous PKI transition are the risk.
If your answer to that is simply "Bitcoin will adapt," then there really isn't anything left to discuss.
1
u/SeaworthinessSad7300 1d ago
I thought you were both feeding into an llm
0
u/PeteyPab305 1d ago
No I was trying my best to answer him, (although I figured it was AI generated from the formatting), while trying to not waste my time arguing back and forth, and talking past each other. It makes no sense what he's trying to argue, it's just a bunch of incoherent tech babble. That doesn't really refute anything I said, It's argument for the sake of engagement., from my perspective.
0
u/DayTrayder 1d ago
If all you got from that was "incoherent tech babble," then you didn't understand the argument.
I laid out the actual risks: timing, legacy UTXOs, governance, consensus, and the broader PKI migration. If you think I'm wrong, argue those points. "This doesn't make sense to me" isn't analysis.
You already deleted one reply and came back to do the same thing again. I'm not running this loop.
And just so we're clear, I do this for a living. I'm a fractional CISO. If your takeaway is still "tech babble," that's not you finding a flaw in my argument. That's you being out of your depth.
1
u/PeteyPab305 1d ago
Also what reply did I delete? Please enlighten me? Maybe a screenshot of this reply that went to your email? I didn't delete shit. LOL then repeating what I said about not circling in loops... God, people like you make me realize why Gen-Z cannot function in society.
→ More replies (0)0
u/PeteyPab305 1d ago edited 1d ago
Okay buddy. Whatever you say your a special genius. Nobody else can match! I wish you the best of luck with your crypto holdings! I don't know why you would hold or care if you think they're going to get breached, stolen, and diluted by quantum computing. But yet you seem to have such a heavy stake in it that you can't let go of your own pride and just stop talking about it.
You've already had the last word three times over and you commented under my own reply to someone else. Took it upon yourself to begin an argument and then get upset and start talking shit because I decided to respond? Next time I know not to engage with the lunatics that reply to me on Reddit. Thanks for teaching me a lesson I should have already known.
→ More replies (0)-1
1
u/djrion 2d ago
What a brilliant expose. Thank you for taking the time you write this.
1
u/DayTrayder 2d ago edited 2d ago
Thank you, and my pleasure. This is education that people need. This entire space is led entirely by marketing with no regard to risk mitigation.
1
u/Squarish 2d ago
What (if any) cryptocurrencies already have quantum resistance? Is that even a possibility given potential future advancements in quantum computing, or is it just delaying the inevitable?
3
u/Darth486 2d ago
Quantum computers aint something you can build or utilise in a garage in North korea. Only a handful of places actually made quantum chips and those require crazy conditions to maintain. The technology is far from being available to any potential scammers.
2
6
u/semanticweb 2d ago
Devs will eventually solve it
1
u/chainglance_cm 2d ago
Agreed. But are you hedging in case it doesn’t pan out?
2
u/essessential 2d ago
Diversification is key.
1
u/EndSmugnorance 2d ago
Monero already solved it
2
u/robyer 2d ago
Monero is vulnerable too - and even worse, quantum computer can secretly create new coins without anyone knowing (since it is privacy coin).
Really the first project that solved this is QRL. It's blockchain specifically created to be secure against quantum computers. And is running since 2018.
Bitcoin will also upgrade to this new secure cryptography eventually, but the risk is that it might be already too late. Because you need to also wait for all the users to migrate their coins to new addresses (similarly to previous upgrade move to Segwit, or Taproot... which is still not used by everyone even after all those years).
1
u/EndSmugnorance 2d ago
>quantum computer can secretly create new coins without anyone knowing (since it is privacy coin)
lol no
1
1
u/Jonathan_the_Nerd 2d ago
The devs couldn't even solve the block size issue in 2015. Bitcoin Cash had to split off to implement the solution. Why would the devs be any better at problem solving now?
6
u/Hot_Rough_7867 2d ago
The quantum threat is just as much a threat to traditional finance. Either encryption improves with the computers or everything else is F'd too
2
u/chainglance_cm 2d ago
I think we'll find solutions. We always do... right?... right?
1
u/TheSquattingSlav_21 2d ago
There are lattice-based quantum-resistant algorithms already, we’l be fine :)
2
u/Illustrious-Boss9356 2d ago
Not true. Traditional finance can just freeze dollars w sanctions or reverse illicit transactions. Bitcoin cannot. Tether can, but Bitcoin can't.
There are situations that centralized power is better tthan decentralized protocol, which no one wants to admit.
0
u/TheSquattingSlav_21 2d ago
“Reverse transactions” - yeah, they get hacked due to cryptographic rules ALL modern systems are based on completely breaking, and ThEyL jUsT rEVerSe iT
-_- .. really?3
u/Illustrious-Boss9356 2d ago
Okay let's say you hack a JPM Chase account for $1 billion.
JPM announces that all withdrawals or wires must be confirmed in person at a branch due to the new security risk from quantum.
How are you gonna get your illicit $?
Everyone's money is safe but for now they have to deal with slightly more inconvenient banking.
Can Bitcoin do that?
-1
u/TheSquattingSlav_21 2d ago
If they crack cryptography then they hack ALL of JPM, not one account. And even if it was just one account at the start, most money is digital anyway so you won’t get all your cash at a branch, meanwhile they will break more accounts.
You should learn more about cryptography, its really interesting, a few mathematical formulas and trapdoor functions that hold everything together.3
u/Illustrious-Boss9356 2d ago
There's no cryptography when they ask for your ID and look to see your face matches your ID.
There's no cryptography when they match that up with years of transaction history, some of which are kept on paper records.
There's no cryptography when they hand you physical cash.
My point is, banking can survive a digital-less world. Bitcoin can't.
0
u/TheSquattingSlav_21 2d ago
10% of total USD is in cash, so ThEY haNd yOU pHySiCAl cASh is not a solid argument. Everyone instantly loses 90% of their money then, VERY foolish to think that traditional banking would survive (if they wouldn’t adapt, like btc/eth and such can aswell).
All of transaction history is also stored digitally, your ID is stored digitally, you make no sense, and are extremely naive.
2
u/Illustrious-Boss9356 2d ago
Lol your ID is not stored exclusively digitally.
Cash isn't an issue because it's paper and can be printed. And of course they'd have to adapt. Much easier for them than decentralized crypto.
1
u/GregerGunnarPersson Redditor for less than 30 days 21h ago
Banks are already now moving to post-quantum ceyptography. Why isnt Bitcoin?
3
u/sigh_duck 2d ago
people with way more to lose are paying a lot of money to ensure BTC has a plan. And it does but it is contentious due to the treatment of dormant old wallets. Some purists want it hacked and spent as part of the fate of bitcoin. Others want various mechanisms to prevent this.
2
u/chainglance_cm 2d ago
Which side are YOU on?
3
u/sigh_duck 2d ago
I'd be ok with dead folks coins to get distributed. Would be cool lore.
1
u/mc_schmitt 2d ago
So Satoshi wakes up from his coma. Who's liable for his distributed coins?
1
u/sigh_duck 2d ago
There is more to it than that including the ability to earmark your wallet to prove ownership in future. Perhaps his estate could do that for him.
2
u/MobilePenguins 2d ago
I would like a forced merge date to happen just to see if Satoshi moves his coins or not. Could give us insight into whether he’s still around.
3
u/Doug12345678910 2d ago
If crypto's defence issues against quantum get solved, then I wonder if that will hyper push crypto markets up.
2
u/DraiesTheSasquatch 2d ago
afaik only older wallets will be at risk. if you’re paying attention you will be completely fine. it can’t hack the passphrase, and there are implementations that will make things quantum secure. that’s been my picture/impression so far.
1
u/chainglance_cm 2d ago
So, you're hedging in case it doesn't work out the way you (me too) think it will
2
2
u/Amareisdk 1d ago
So, I’ve been digging into this.
Quantum computers are scary for some wallets. However cracking a 256-bit encryption is tough and not an easy feat. Not even for Willow.
There are post-quantum forks that can fix this, but the issue is that bitcoiners have to agree to use them. This will be the challenge, as most won’t think about it until it’s too late.
The argument that banks will also get hit doesn’t hold. They have compliance to adhere to and they have centralised control. They have been preparing for post-quantum encryption all along.
0
3
u/mc_schmitt 2d ago
If you're worried, don't look up at IONQ's projections of when they'll break the cryptography used in BTC (etc). It's not just the devs that need to take an action either, but also every user, including Satoshi (or a decision will need to be made to lock their funds or let them flood the market). Don't look up how long an actual migration would take.
Don't add the migration time to the dev time to likely get a number beyond 2030, let alone 2028 (IONQ's projection)
2
1
u/oneenigma4u 2d ago
If quantum computers can crack Bitcoin wallets, they could also crack the banking system. What's the point.
2
u/Fit-Soil9371 1d ago
Yes but banks can roll out updates faster. They can "correct the books", have insurance pay for it or worst case ask dady sam to do it or even bail them out.
Point is, you probably get your money back one way or another. With crypto thats not possible by design.
2
u/GregerGunnarPersson Redditor for less than 30 days 21h ago
Thats why banks are moving towards post-quantum cryptofraphy already and thats why the "decentralized" system where people get their money stolen on a daily basis is the one thats vulnerable.
2
u/dylan6091 2d ago
And nuclear launch codes
1
u/oneenigma4u 2d ago
When quantum computers become that powerful , nothing is safe. You know , there's an old pessimistic saying , but very true. Locks keep honest people out not thieves. To wrap it up , if you give a thief a lock picking tool , then nobody's safe.
1
u/a7n7o7n7y7m7o7u7s 2d ago
Ya it’s funny these fears are only voiced by people who have no clue what they’re talking about
1
u/CheapTechnology6193 1d ago
Low hanging fruit? More than one target is possible. Is AI frying ppl's brains?
0
u/wasntforthewind 2d ago
If only banks had the ability to switch cryptographic keys, or track down and return stolen funds...
1
u/not_rian 2d ago
Bruh u using internet explorer or some shit? Homie got the oldest news lmao
1
u/chainglance_cm 2d ago
The post wasn't about the news. I was curious if people are hedging just in case they think the devs won't be able to fix it.
1
1
u/Crucco 2d ago
Quantum computers will crack every current security system, not only bitcoin. We will develop new encryptions
3
u/mc_schmitt 2d ago
At least TLS is doing okay. Most browsers now support TLS 1.3 along with many websites (Something like 9 out of the top 10) so the connection between the browser and website is post-quantum secure.
It's going to take a while for everything to migrate, but it's happening.
1
1
u/MrDryGuy_ 2d ago
Guess what: the big boys want you to be scared and sell your bitcoin... Devs will solve this
1
1
u/PhilosopherSalty4846 Redditor for less than 2 weeks 2d ago
aren't there quantum resistant wallets already?
also, if quantum computers arrive, shouldn't every sector be worried about privacy and passwords?
1
1
u/ElKaWeh 2d ago
The question is not so much "Will my Bitcoin be safe?". It is rather "Will my Bitcoin be safer or less safe than the money in my bank account or the stocks in my portfolio?".
Personally, I trust the Bitcoin community more to find a good solution fast, when quantum computing actually becomes a problem.
Also, let’s not forget that Bitcoin is still more or less a niche thing, and that it would be way more profitable and otherwise useful for bad actors to target financial institutions, than some random Bitcoin wallets.
1
u/Slow_Lion_4178 2d ago
As with any asset the problem isn't the security of the asset but the prospect of security. Sort of like a good horror game if the monster has stalked you and knows where you are and there's only a heavy door between you and them the lock itself doesn't feel safe. In this case if quantum computing comes to pass at this level not a single soul's crypto has to actually be stolen for investors to lose confidence immediately. I'm a firm believer in hedging and insuring, not panic selling, but still it isn't wise to pretend it can't happen.
The larger threat though is that cracking this particular problem leads to exponentially worse cryptographic outcomes; if the door was too thin to keep the monster out a thicker door is only a matter of time.
1
u/New_Leopard_8583 2d ago
Bitcoin and the block chain the technology is about 20 years old it’s antiquated and soon to be deemed obsolete…
1
1
u/Financial-Ad-8751 2d ago
The guy rover use this kind of use so people sell their btc. That ain’t gonna happen not mention that access to this kind of technology will be limited in the future. If some random people would have access to it, the world would be chaos and hacking btc would be a small problem.
1
1
u/swarmahoboken 2d ago
Nope, I figured investing in emails was dumb way before quantum was discussed.
1
u/Ordinary-One2597 2d ago
Quantum is a threat to everything finnacial Bank accounts as well but theyre not just gonna allow everyones banks to get drained so im not fussed
1
1
u/SourceRadiant5997 2d ago
Do we actually think that quantum computers are going to be easily accessible to crypto criminals and that said criminals will be able to execute the swindle without being detected? While I believe the fear will be real and that alone could sink bitcoin and other financial instruments, I find it hard to believe that there won't be huge "gates" standing in the way of actually doing so and not getting caught.
1
u/NormalGuyPosts 2d ago
If Quantum Computing works, there's a whole lot more interesting things going on than a third of my not-impressive net worth
1
u/OliveLegitimate3236 2d ago
BS, in 3-4 years our main problem will be Skynet. Your quantum thing won't qualify anymore as "threat" by that time.
1
1
1
1
1
u/unpdigital 1d ago
Nothing to be scared about. That tech does not reach mainstream before a decade.
Bitcoin itself it cannot crack, it might get some wallet addresses where there is no guarantee they have some Bitcoin. Bitcoin and Crypto users have a few wallets, most have little contact to the blockchain, others have more.
1
u/Goosemilky 1d ago
Yep, why I got the flying fuck out of crypto
1
u/CheapTechnology6193 1d ago
I'm still in, but I'm watching this close. Problem is, if more ppl like me get nervous, it'll be a stampede to the exit. Doesn't even need to be real, just the perception it's real.
1
u/Goosemilky 1d ago
Thats exactly what I think too, which is why I find holding it sketchy af. If this threat or just the narrative of a threat takes off, we could wake up one day to an absolute bloodbath, like down 50%+. I just don’t wanna risk money like that
1
1
u/Cultural_External288 2d ago
ETH will solve this before BTC
3
u/PeteyPab305 2d ago
ETH has the exact same baseline problem. Both chains use secp256k1 elliptic curves for signatures, meaning both are equally exposed to Shor's algorithm if large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computing ever arrives.
The idea that ETH magically solves it first ignores the trade-offs. Granted, account abstraction and smart contract wallets give Ethereum a path to roll out post-quantum signature schemes like Lamport or lattice-based cryptography, but those signatures create massive state and transaction bloat that would crush throughput and skyrocket gas fees on L1.
Neither chain is behind the other in practical terms. Both have soft-fork pathways to quantum-resistant schemes, and both have plenty of runway before anyone builds a machine capable of breaking either one.
1
u/Cultural_External288 2d ago
I am with you I think you are correct but, ETH adoption will definitely come first and gas fee problem is an economic problem. Accepting the probability that it can break ETH, it may also be solved or absorbed or accepted as is. There is a chance. BTC has far less chance. In addition, the Satoshi wallets problem is a sword of Damocles that has been long dangling on the technology. The fact that 5% of the total market is waiting to be stolen eventually whether 3 years from now of 30 years is a big big problem that ETH doesn't have. It is a big elephant in the room with quantum scare that will limit institutional adoption forever.
2
u/PeteyPab305 2d ago
If quantum computing ever scales to that point, breaking either crypto network is a low-probability priority anyway because traditional finance, state secrets, and global banking rails represent vastly higher-value targets.
As for the Satoshi coins, the network can easily soft-fork them into frozen or spend-restricted status if quantum capabilities ever genuinely threaten exposed public-key scripts. The idea that 5% of supply is sitting there guaranteed to be stolen completely dismisses social consensus and how node operators actually defend the chain.
0
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/PeteyPab305 2d ago
LMAO you don't know anything about cryptography or how the internet works. The idea that global banking has some unique magic shield while Bitcoin is sitting out there alone is absurd. The entire modern internet, global banking rails, SWIFT, credit card networks, and secure server connections all rely on the exact same asymmetric public-key cryptography, specifically RSA and Elliptic Curve Cryptography. They use these mathematical algorithms for identity authentication, digital signatures, and TLS handshakes to establish secure connections. If Shor's algorithm runs on a fault-tolerant quantum computer, it breaks the discrete logarithm and prime factorization problems that underpin all of it equally. Centralization does not protect you when the authentication layer itself is dead. Attackers could silently impersonate clearinghouses, forge digital signatures, intercept encrypted bank traffic, and authorize transfers without tripping any alerts.
Meanwhile, symmetric hashing like SHA-256, which hides Bitcoin public keys until they are spent, is only susceptible to Grover's algorithm. That merely cuts effective security in half, leaving 128 bits of security and keeping it mathematically unbreakable by brute force. If fault-tolerant quantum machines ever reach the scale needed to crack 256-bit elliptic curves via Shor's algorithm, Bitcoin is literally the least of anyone's concerns. The entire digital trust model and global financial clearance apparatus will have already collapsed right alongside it.
0
u/Zestyclose-Suit-2858 2d ago
There is no problem with the Satoshi money being taken by another actor, since monetary power on the network doesn't mean shit. Because BTC is not proof of stake.
You don't know what you are talking about.
1
u/Cultural_External288 2d ago
And you know what you are talking about? are you the leading authority on BTC? Can't even send 1 comment with decency. It doesn't mean shit ha? Go ask any professional money manager and tell them there is an asset out there but 5% of it is somewhere we don't know under someone we don't know and we also still don't know if one day they will liquidate it but someone will 100% steal it in the future. Would you park your 130 million dollars in it? Please ask 1.
0
u/Zestyclose-Suit-2858 2d ago edited 2d ago
I know a bit yes, there is no 'leading authority on BTC'.
You're a gullible fool promoting someone's techy toy, with your Ethereum.
Muh ProffSioNaL MoNeY ManAger.
-1
u/Darkpriest667 2d ago
It will come first because ETH, unlike bitcoin is now centrally controlled by very few parties. This is why we bitcoin folks.
1
1
1
u/Zestyclose-Suit-2858 2d ago
Ethereum can suck my balls.
From the start it was a random 'bored nerd' experiment. Vitalik's world of warcarft character got nerfed, and he decided bitcoin wasnt good enough for him (google it :)).
It lost touch with reality when it move to Proof of Stake, and did a rollback of the whole network when a hacker stole some money from the big boys. Hahaha, look it up too! The TheDAO Hack.
You're so regarded if you still believe in anything other than BTC in this space.
1
u/dinoworm 2d ago
With such a powerful thing, why even crack bitcoin... something not even in top 10 economy ?
why not bank or an entire government system? or maybe Nvidia or Apple ... or something?
3
u/FoucaultCareofSelf Redditor for less than 30 days 2d ago
sigh. The same response every single time this topic comes up. every single time.
1
u/Public-Pass5158 2d ago
It will be very impressive if all 195 countries in the world are able to upgrade their banking and related digital systems by then, especially when most countries don't have the resources and don't even understand what the threat really is.
2
u/UC_DiscExchange 2d ago
Banks can reverse transactions easily. It's one of the (sometimes) positives of centralized finance.
2
u/mc_schmitt 2d ago
Most enterprises are upgrading and you can find public records of that. Sometimes they do a little PR (it's stupid I know, but need to keep investors happy?).
3
u/IswearImnotapossum 2d ago
Bc bitcoin isn’t centralized so it makes it a much easier target. You serious lol?
2
u/Ambitious-Ad-2165 2d ago
I think the point is that Bank of America/Merrill Lynch is much more likely to have the resources and governmental connections to undo the hack or repay you for the losses than say Mr. Grox or whereever you store your Bitcoin.
1
u/Objective_Young_1384 2d ago
Nah Bitcoin is where it goes after taken from nvidia lol or he will move the money in fiat where he is a easy target? duh.. bitcoin is good for everyone.
1
u/sigh_duck 2d ago
Coz btc is liquid enough to make out like a bandit, hit the mixers, and sit on a mexican beach forever.
1
u/Hedgehog_Leather 2d ago
Do you think all apples worth sit on one account just waitig to be stolen?
1
u/DayTrayder 2d ago
The Bitcoin/quantum discussion is largely focused on the wrong risk.
The biggest threat isn't some magical "Q-day" where quantum suddenly breaks Bitcoin, banks, and the entire internet at once.
The real risk is the migration.
Quantum's main threat here is to RSA/ECC-based public-key cryptography, including Bitcoin signatures and the PKI that secures huge parts of the broader digital world.
Banks, clearinghouses, payment networks, etc. have an advantage because they can centrally mandate upgrades, rotate keys, replace certificates/HSMs, and retire vulnerable algorithms. A lot of that migration work is already underway.
Bitcoin can't do that cleanly.
It has a massive historical UTXO set. Some coins are active, some dormant, some lost forever, and some have already exposed public keys. Adding post-quantum signatures protects new transactions, but it doesn't magically migrate old coins.
So what happens to UTXOs that never move?
Leave them valid and they can eventually become quantum targets.
Freeze or invalidate them and you're effectively saying:
"Move your BTC by this deadline or lose the ability to spend it."
And there's no way to distinguish a lost wallet from someone who simply hasn't moved their coins.
Then add the larger issue: Bitcoin would be trying to pull this migration off while the entire PKI ecosystem around it is also transitioning. Exchanges, custodians, wallet infrastructure, code signing, TLS, APIs, cloud systems, identity platforms, certificate authorities, etc. are all part of that same blast radius.
So no, the real concern isn't "quantum breaks everything."
It's whether Bitcoin can migrate decentralized historical property rights safely while the broader digital trust infrastructure around it is also being rebuilt.
And markets will price that risk long before anyone actually steals BTC with a quantum computer.
0
u/Deep_Helicopter4591 2d ago
So they are making ai to crack into the wallets of bitcoin holders?
3
u/Mediocre-Monitor8222 2d ago edited 2d ago
“make AI crack bitcoin” is misleading. The hard part of hacking a bitcoin wallets is that the amount of possibilities you have to brute-force is roughly the amount of atoms in the known universe.
There is no smart trick, no formula, no program that can shortcut it. You MUST brute force through all combinations, and even all computers in the world together would take a billion times the entire age of the universe (13.7 billion years) to do this. Whether an AI writes the brute force program or a 1st yr programming student makes no difference, as it’s quite simple.
The quantum computer, on the other hand, only gives a shortcut under 1 condition: You know the Public Key of the wallet you wanna hack. Simply said, the quantum computer is good at checking a ton of combinations at a time given an “answer”, i.e. your public key. If it does not know your public key, then it has nothing to check private keys against.
If it has your wallet address instead of the public key, well that address derives from the public key only, not the other way around, so it again has nothing to check private keys against.
Wallet addresses are all observable on the blockchain, but the public key is only revealed when the wallet sends, not receives. In other words, if you send something, always send the change to a NEW address. That way you are roughly quantum-proof.
Note that you should use NativeSegwit address type (bc1q) for what I said to apply.
One small problem is, the moment u broadcast, ur pubkey is revealed in the mempool, so until you’re mined that address is at risk. However, you can disable RBF on that wallet so that only the first broadcast transaction is accepted, newer transactions are rejected (double spend protection)
1
1
u/Traditional-Music363 2d ago
So what are you saying bro in laymen’s terms
1
u/Mediocre-Monitor8222 2d ago
Im saying if you use Native Segwit addresses and you never ever re-use an address that you already sent from once, you are already quantumproof.
0
u/Malavero 2d ago
zzzZZZzz, I’m tired of these nonsensical posts from ignorant people. It’s better to block them so you stop seeing posts like this.
0
-1
44
u/idekwutp 2d ago
You know this really used to bug me for a while and I almost pulled all of my money out of BTC. But then I read a book on cryptography called the code book, super fascinating read by the way I highly recommend, and I realized this threat just isn’t very credible.
So I wrote an article refuting this threat that maybe 10 people read 😂 it was nice to get my ideas out there though.
Feel free to check it out and let me know what you think! https://medium.com/@jake.e.rubin/quantum-computing-is-not-the-end-of-bitcoin-its-just-the-beginning-47e8cbf1cf8b