Is Bitcoin Underestimating the Quantum Computing Threat?

Bitcoin’s quantum computing debate has resurfaced yet again, but this time it is less about abstract theory and more about how the network thinks about risk, timing, and responsibility.

Recent remarks from several high-profile figures have revealed a philosophical split inside the Bitcoin ecosystem: should the protocol prepare early for a low-probability threat, or wait until the danger is undeniable?

Patience, Coordination, and the Case for Waiting

At the center of the discussion is Michael Saylor, who recently argued that quantum computing does not pose an immediate risk to Bitcoin. His view is rooted in scale and coordination. According to Saylor, a quantum machine powerful enough to break Bitcoin’s cryptography would also threaten governments, banks, and global tech infrastructure. In that scenario, he expects a coordinated response across industries, with quantum-resistant standards rolled out broadly – and Bitcoin upgrading alongside them.

Saylor went a step further, suggesting that such a transition could even strengthen Bitcoin. If quantum resistance required users to move coins to new address types, dormant or inaccessible coins could effectively be frozen, tightening supply. Rather than a catastrophic failure, he framed the moment as a potential structural shock that reinforces scarcity.

That perspective resonates with parts of Bitcoin’s old guard. Adam Back, one of the earliest contributors to Bitcoin, has dismissed near-term quantum fears as exaggerated. He argues that quantum computing remains stuck in a highly experimental phase, facing unresolved challenges in error correction, stability, and scalability. From his standpoint, fears of an imminent cryptographic break are misplaced, with any realistic threat still decades away.

The Warning Against Complacency

But a growing minority is uncomfortable with that level of confidence.

Venture capitalist Nic Carter has taken a sharply different stance, warning that Bitcoin’s culture of minimising unlikely risks could backfire. Carter does not claim that a quantum attack is imminent or inevitable. Instead, he questions the assumption that progress will remain slow and predictable.

In his view, the pace of quantum research has accelerated meaningfully, with 2025 marking one of the most active years for breakthroughs and investment in the field. That acceleration, he argues, makes it dangerous to rely on long-established timelines. Even if the probability of a breakthrough remains low, the consequences would be extreme.

Carter’s concern is not abstract. He points to a structural vulnerability: Bitcoin’s reliance on public-key cryptography means that, under certain conditions, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could derive private keys from exposed public keys. He estimates that millions of BTC currently sit in address formats that could be vulnerable in such a scenario.

The challenge, Carter argues, is that fixing the problem is not trivial. While Bitcoin could theoretically adopt post-quantum signature schemes through a soft fork, doing so would require broad consensus and years of coordination. Even after agreement, users would need time to migrate funds to new address formats, and some coins might never move at all.

That includes the coins attributed to Bitcoin’s creator. If those funds remain in legacy addresses, the network would eventually face an uncomfortable dilemma: leave them exposed indefinitely, or intervene in a way that breaks long-standing norms about immutability and neutrality.

A Philosophical Split Over Bitcoin’s Future

This is where the debate becomes less technical and more philosophical. Saylor and Back emphasize patience, arguing that premature action risks unnecessary complexity and unintended consequences. Carter, by contrast, argues that preparation does not require panic – only acknowledgment that uncertainty itself is a risk.

Bitcoin has faced similar crossroads before. Scaling debates, mining centralization fears, and security trade-offs have all forced the network to balance caution against adaptability. Quantum computing may simply be the next iteration of that pattern.

For now, there is no consensus – and perhaps no urgency. But the discussion itself marks a shift. Quantum risk is no longer treated solely as science fiction or distant speculation. It is increasingly being framed as a long-term strategic issue, one that tests how Bitcoin plans for threats that may arrive slowly, suddenly, or not at all.

Related stories

Next article