Quantum computers have not yet succeeded in breaking Bitcoin, but numerous significant blockchains are taking precautions for a future where this could become possible.
Recently, Aptos introduced support for post-quantum signatures, while Solana experimented with quantum-resistant transactions. At the same time, segments of the Bitcoin community have renewed their advocacy for speeding up the development of quantum-safe upgrades.
These advancements highlight increasing concerns within the crypto space. Investors believe that prominent figures downplaying quantum threats are negatively impacting Bitcoin’s (BTC) price, which has fallen 24% over the last three months.
While alternative blockchains explore post-quantum safeguards via optional upgrades and test networks, Bitcoin remains split on how openly and urgently it should tackle quantum risks.
How blockchains are preparing without sounding the alarm
Ethereum has articulated why quantum computing is now viewed as an engineering challenge rather than a remote hypothetical scenario.
Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, contends that even a low-probability event necessitates early planning due to the high cost of failure and the lengthy timeframe required to transition global systems.
Citing predictive models, he estimates a roughly 20% chance that quantum computers capable of defeating current public-key cryptography could appear before 2030, with a median prediction around 2040. He noted that while no machines currently exist that can compromise Bitcoin or Ethereum, delaying action is itself perilous since transitioning a global network to post-quantum protocols can take years.
This perspective has begun to resonate across other leading blockchains, particularly those able to experiment without reopening foundational discussions.
Aptos has proposed incorporating post-quantum signature support at the account level via an opt-in upgrade, allowing existing accounts to remain unaffected. This approach advocates for future-proofing rather than responding to an immediate threat. Users can choose to adopt the new system without necessitating a network-wide transition.
Related: What if quantum computers already compromised Bitcoin?
Solana has adopted a similar stance by focusing on testing rather than implementation. In collaboration with post-quantum security firm Project Eleven, the network recently launched a dedicated testnet utilizing quantum-resistant signatures to evaluate whether such measures can be integrated without affecting performance or compatibility.
Bitcoin’s quantum debate ultimately revolves around trust
Bitcoin employs elliptic curve cryptography to verify ownership. The possession of funds is established through a private key, with only the corresponding public key being disclosed on-chain.
In theory, a sufficiently advanced quantum computer executing Shor’s algorithm could reverse-engineer a public key to retrieve the private key, allowing an attacker to access funds without any obvious telltale signs of theft. From the network’s viewpoint, these coins would appear to have moved as if the owner had chosen to transact.
Even supporters of post-quantum upgrades generally agree that relevant cryptographic machines are still years away. However, the contention within the Bitcoin community is about how Bitcoin should react to a risk that is far off, uncertain, and challenging to detect once it appears.
On one side, developers and seasoned Bitcoin cryptographers assert that framing quantum computing as an urgent concern does more harm than good.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back has consistently downplayed immediate quantum concerns, emphasizing that practical quantum attacks are still decades away. He contends that magnifying quantum risks incites panic and leads markets to factor in a threat that is currently non-existent.
Conversely, investors and researchers hold that even a low-probability event is significant for an asset that relies on long-term trust. Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, has termed the outright dismissal of quantum risk by influential developers as bearish.
Craig Warmke from the Bitcoin Policy Institute has similarly cautioned that perceived indifference is prompting some investors to diversify away from Bitcoin, regardless of whether the underlying technical fears are clearly articulated.
This tension clarifies why proposals like Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360, which aims to introduce quantum-resistant signature options, provoke significant reactions despite being in early and tentative stages.
Related: Bitcoin decouples from stocks in the latter half of 2025
Supporters perceive early initiatives as a means to reduce uncertainty and demonstrate readiness. Critics, however, see the same discussions as legitimizing a speculative danger and inviting confusion concerning Bitcoin’s robustness.
Why quantum uncertainty affects Bitcoin differently
Currently, quantum computers cannot breach Bitcoin or any major blockchain. However, the anxiety surrounding quantum risks is shaping how various networks communicate and how investors interpret those actions.
Outside of Bitcoin, post-quantum developments are generally framed as infrastructural improvements. Opt-in upgrades and test networks enable blockchains to convey preparedness without compelling users or markets to reassess present-day security assumptions. This strategy minimizes the reputational risks associated with early preparations while maintaining flexibility in response to changing timelines.
Bitcoin exists under different constraints. Its value is intricately linked to long-term assurances regarding security and durability, so discussions about future-proofing its cryptography tend to attract immediate scrutiny. What may be viewed as ordinary contingency planning in other contexts can be more readily interpreted as a commentary on Bitcoin’s fundamentals.
Influential voices in the Bitcoin ecosystem worry that highlighting distant hazards might lead to misunderstandings and panic. Investors fear that downplaying those risks could indicate a lack of preparedness. Both perspectives illustrate how confidence is influenced in the absence of clear timelines.
The quantum discourse underscores that, for Bitcoin, managing the conversation around long-term risks may be as crucial as addressing the risks themselves.
Magazine: Big questions: Would Bitcoin survive a 10-year power outage?
