Opinion by: Youssef El Maddarsi, chief business officer of Naoris Protocol
Some Bitcoin (BTC) advocates argue that the network faces no meaningful quantum threat in the immediate future, pointing to emerging NIST-approved post-quantum standards and suggesting that Bitcoin can simply upgrade long before any cryptographically relevant quantum computer appears. This confidence relies on the risky assumption that the quantum threat begins only once a machine can break keys in real time. Adam Back argued that Bitcoin has at least 20-40 years to ready itself, but the quantum threat is already active today.
Bitcoin cannot rely on a leisurely multi-decade upgrade path.
Some readers may strongly object to this, insisting that quantum timelines are still too uncertain to justify urgent action and that raising alarms risks inducing unnecessary fear. The facts do not support complacency.
IBM recently made a major leap toward practical quantum computing with its new generation of chips, claiming that these processors and their faster error-correction methods could enable the company to reach quantum advantage during 2026 and deliver early fault-tolerant systems by 2029. So, the race is intensifying.
Vitalik Buterin said at a 2025 Devconnect conference that quantum computers could break elliptic-curve cryptography sooner than expected, possibly even before the 2028 US election, and advocated for Ethereum to transition to quantum-resistant cryptography within a few years. This contradicts the comfortable narrative from some Bitcoin enthusiasts, showing that even Ethereum’s founder thinks the quantum timeline is much tighter than people want to believe.
Quantum risk is already market-relevant
Deloitte also recently reported that roughly 4 million BTC, around 25% of all usable supply, sit in addresses that expose public keys vulnerable to quantum attacks. Researchers have long warned that a sufficiently advanced quantum computer could derive private keys from exposed public keys using Shor’s algorithm, enabling attackers to instantly drain legacy wallets.
This isn’t unique to Bitcoin. Ethereum and most blockchains today rely on elliptic curve cryptography, and quantum will shatter that. Buterin has already outlined emergency procedures for the day quantum computers crack Ethereum accounts.
The “we can upgrade later” argument fails in practice
The argument that Bitcoin has decades to prepare for the quantum threat rests on the belief that it can simply adopt the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) post-quantum cryptography standards before any meaningful attack becomes possible, but upgrading Bitcoin is not a trivial patch. It’s a fundamental overhaul of the protocol’s signature scheme. According to researchers at the University of Kent, upgrading Bitcoin to a quantum-resistant cryptosystem could require up to 75 days of downtime, possibly over 300 days if the network must operate at reduced capacity to limit attack vectors during migration. A prolonged global outage for a trillion-dollar asset class is not something the industry can consider an acceptable “in time” fix.
Related: Quantum threat to Bitcoin extends past wallet hacks
Even if Bitcoin were technically capable of migrating smoothly, political reality poses another barrier. Bitcoin’s governance culture is famously resistant to change, as evidenced by the years of debate and coordination required for Taproot, a relatively modest upgrade. A mandatory, high-stakes migration to an entirely new cryptographic foundation would spark ideological conflict, potential chain splits and long-term uncertainty. The idea that such an overhaul could be comfortably executed decades from now ignores the adversarial dynamics Bitcoin has faced with far simpler upgrades.
Meanwhile, the quantum timeline is accelerating faster than many expect. The European Commission and EU member states recently released a coordinated roadmap to transition the bloc’s digital infrastructure to post-quantum cryptography (PQC), recognizing the threat quantum computers pose to existing encryption. The plan sets a unified timeline: All member states must begin national PQC strategies and initial migration steps by 2026; critical infrastructure and other high-risk sectors must adopt quantum-resistant encryption by 2030; and, by 2035, the PQC transition should be completed for all systems that can feasibly be upgraded.
The market effect of a delayed transition could be catastrophic
What makes this threat particularly urgent for crypto is the market effect of a mishandled transition. If an attacker used quantum hardware to derive private keys from dormant Bitcoin wallets, they could suddenly move millions of long-inactive coins, flooding exchanges and collapsing price levels. Similarly, a malicious quantum miner who could consistently solve Bitcoin’s proof-of-work puzzles would undermine mining decentralization, turning a global industry into an oligopoly dominated by quantum-equipped actors. These risks would reshape market structure long before any theoretical 20-to-40-year safe window.
Post-quantum cryptography is absolutely necessary, but it must be adopted before adversaries develop the hardware, not after. NIST standards provide a roadmap, not a guarantee. The transition path will be long, contentious and disruptive. Pretending it can be postponed for decades risks leaving Bitcoin and the broader crypto ecosystem exposed to the most significant security challenge of the century.
The crypto industry has spent 15 years defending decentralization, trustlessness and user sovereignty. Quantum computing now poses a new challenge: whether the industry acts proactively or waits for a crisis to prompt action. The cost of being wrong is far greater than the cost of preparing early.
Many may believe Bitcoin has decades of runway. The evidence points to a different conclusion: The quantum clock is already ticking, and the market is quietly adjusting. The only question is whether the industry will move before it runs out of time.
Opinion by: Youssef El Maddarsi, chief business officer of Naoris Protocol.
This opinion article presents the contributor’s expert view and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance, Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
This opinion article presents the contributor’s expert view and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance, Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
