“You don’t need perfect quantum attacks to create chaos; you just need enough uncertainty to shift incentives.” | Image credit: Hameem Sarwar /CCN
Share
Key Takeaways
Bitcoin’s assumption that upgrades can happen later creates risk as quantum capabilities begin to develop unevenly and unpredictably.
Millions of BTC already sit in addresses with exposed public keys, which could become vulnerable before full-scale quantum attacks exist.
A transition to post-quantum cryptography would require long coordination, technical changes, and potential network disruption.
BIP-361 shows that preparing early may be the only realistic way to avoid a rushed and chaotic upgrade.
If you’ve been in the crypto space for anything longer than a cup of coffee, you’ll know that Bitcoin (BTC) developers don’t usually agree on much.
So when a proposal starts quietly gaining traction across different camps, it’s worth paying attention. I’m talking about Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 361. Drafted by researchers including Jameson Lopp, it sketches out a path to migrate Bitcoin away from its current signature schemes toward quantum-resistant alternatives. The catch? It may eventually force unmigrated coins into permanent limbo, unspendable and frozen in time.
There’s been a kind of informal consensus for years, pushed by voices like Adam Back whoargue that quantum computing just isn’t an immediate concern, stubbornly claiming that we have maybe 20 to 40 years before quantum machines can realistically break Bitcoin’s cryptography. I get why that’s an appealing narrative, as it avoids hard decisions today.
But it also leans on a pretty shaky assumption, that the quantum threat only matters once a machine can crack keys instantly, in real time. That’s a narrow view.
In reality, the threat begins much earlier, in the gray zone where capabilities are partial, uneven, and maybe only accessible to a handful of actors. You don’t need perfect quantum attacks to create chaos; you just need enough uncertainty to shift incentives.
Some people will say this is alarmist, but brushing it off entirely feels like wishful thinking at this point.
We sometimes use affiliate links in our content, when clicking on those we might receive a commission at no extra cost to you. By using this website you agree to our terms and conditions and privacy policy.
Look at what’s happening on the ground. IBM has been moving fast, recently unveiling new chips and error-correction techniques that could push it toward quantum advantage as early as 2026, with early fault-tolerant systems by 2029. Those timelines are not far off. In protocol terms, they are relatively close.
At the same time, the exposure of Bitcoin is already significant. A recent Deloitte report estimates that roughly 4 million BTC (about a quarter of the usable supply) are held in addresses with exposed public keys.
Remember, once a public key is visible, a sufficiently advanced quantum system could, in theory, derive the private key using Shor’s algorithm.
That’s the nightmare scenario: silent key recovery, followed by instant draining of wallets.
And it’s not just Bitcoin.
Vitalik Buterin has openly discussed emergency responses for Ethereum if quantum breakthroughs hit sooner than expected. The whole ecosystem is built on elliptic curve cryptography. If that breaks, it breaks everywhere.
So the idea that this is some distant, abstract risk doesn’t really hold up anymore. It’s already influencing how people think about long-term security, even if markets haven’t fully priced it in yet.
“Switching to post-quantum cryptography isn’t like flipping a switch. It’s a deep rewrite of how signatures work at the protocol level.” | Image source: Nathaniel Szerezla
“Upgrade Later” Assumption Faces Real Constraints
This is where things might get a bit uncomfortable for some. Even if you believe we have time, and maybe we do, the assumption that Bitcoin can just “upgrade when needed” doesn’t match reality.
Switching to post-quantum cryptography isn’t like flipping a switch. It’s a deep rewrite of how signatures work at the protocol level.
A team ofresearchers at the University of Kent have suggested that a full transition could involve something like 75 days of downtime, or potentially over 300 days if the network runs in a constrained mode to reduce attack risks during migration.
Try to picture that for a second. A global asset, worth hundreds of billions, maybe more, partially offline for months. That’s not a clean upgrade. That’s disruption on a scale Bitcoin has never faced.
Bitcoin Cannot Afford to Delay Structural Upgrades
And then there’s governance. Bitcoin doesn’t move fast, by design. Even relatively modest changes, like Taproot, took years of discussion, coordination and, frankly, argument.
A forced migration to a completely new cryptographic system?
That’s going to be messy.
You’ll get ideological splits, technical disagreements, and probably even competing chains.
So the idea that we can just sit back for a couple of decades and handle it later feels optimistic, in the wrong way.
Which brings us back to BIP-361.
It’s not perfect, and making coins unspendable if they don’t migrate is a harsh move. But it at least acknowledges the real constraint here: upgrades take time, coordination, and political will. You can’t compress all of that into a last-minute scramble.
Post-quantum cryptography isn’t some abstract research topic anymore, but a practical necessity. The sooner Bitcoin starts treating it that way, the better its chances of navigating what’s coming, without panic and without breaking the very system it’s trying to protect.
Disclaimer:
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the article belong solely to the author, and not necessarily to CCN, its management, employees, or affiliates. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice.
About the Author
Nathaniel Szerezla
Nathaniel Szerezla is Chief Growth Officer of Naoris Protocol, the post-quantum Layer 1 blockchain securing Web3 and digital infrastructure against the quantum threat. A Web3 marketing and growth leader since 2018, he has spent his career scaling blockchain ecosystems, building global communities, and driving adoption for infrastructure-level technology. He builds at the intersection of AI, quantum, capital, and deep tech.
