James Check, founder and lead analyst at Bitcoin onchain analysis service Checkonchain, said Monday that the quantum threat is more of a consensus problem than a technology problem.
On Monday X publishCheck argued that “there is no way we can come to a consensus to freeze” Bitcoin (BTC) that has not been moved to quantum-resistant addresses, with the development policy limiting the community’s ability to react. This means that a large amount of lost Bitcoin will flood the market as old addresses are compromised when quantum computing attacks become feasible.
BitBo data shows that 32.4% of all Bitcoins have not been moved in the last five years, 16.8% in more than 10 years, 8.2% in seven to 10 years, and 5.4% in five to seven years. How much of this property is actually lost or unavailable, and how much is kept in storage is a matter of debate.
Check’s post was responding to comments Ceteris Paribus, head of research at crypto market research firm Delphi Digital. He said Bitcoin’s quantum threat problem is not technological in nature and “what makes the problem particularly unique to BTC is that the technical problem is secondary.” He said: “Quantum-resistant Bitcoin will be feasible, but it doesn’t solve what you do with old coins.”
Speaking to Cointelegraph in late April, early cypherpunk Adam Back, who was quoted by Satoshi Nakamoto in the Bitcoin White Paper, said the community would have to choose between discarding old, vulnerable addresses or allowing those funds to be stolen. Check said the community should “allow old coins to come back into the market.”
Related: VanEck boss questions Bitcoin privacy, encryption vs. quantum technology
Fix for new addresses only
The technological foundations for making Bitcoin quantum-proof are in place, and the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has confirmed multiple post-quantum public-key cryptography schemes last year. If the Bitcoin community decides to implement them, quantum-resistant Bitcoin addresses are already within reach thanks to these encryption standards and the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360 responds to this need.
However, Bitcoin uses Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) signatures for legacy addresses and Schnorr signatures for Taproot, both of which are vulnerable to quantum computers. For this reason, it is almost certain that a solution would require the introduction of a new post-quantum signature standard. This raises the question of what will happen to the large amount of lost Bitcoins remaining in non-quantum proof addresses.
During an interview with Cointelegraph, Back went so far as to suggest that a quantum threat could reveal whether Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator is alive. He said that quantum computing could force Nakamoto to move his Bitcoin to avoid being stolen by quantum computers. Still, he said last week that Bitcoin is unlikely to face a significant threat from quantum computing for at least two to four decades.
Related: What will happen to Satoshi’s million Bitcoins if quantum computers start working?
Some blockchains got their solution
Experts agree that a backwards-compatible fix that also protects older addresses will probably never be developed for Bitcoin. However, this cannot be said for some other blockchains.
In late July, researchers discovered a backwards compatible quantum resistant patch which would not require a signature change. Unfortunately, the new approach would apply to Sui, Solana, Near, Cosmos and other networks, but not to Ethereum and Bitcoin.
That implementation took advantage of the peculiarities of the Edwards curve digital signature algorithm used by these networks. This scheme deterministically derives private keys from the seed, so the researchers created a zero-knowledge proof system that allowed someone to prove they held the seed. If such proof were required, a signature forged by a quantum computer would not be sufficient to hack an address.
Magazine: Bitcoin vs. Quantum Computing Threat: Timeline and Solutions (2025 – 2035)
About the Author
