Bitcoin and quantum computer fud

[bbc.reporter]

It appears that this article is creating another type of fud that is based on the assumption that a quantum computer that will destroy the cryptospace will be created soon. This is headshaking to write this article with this as the author's big assumption.

In any case, we are not experts on quantum computers. We can only follow the news updates. I will share more news updates on this developing storyline.



The quantum clock is ticking: it's Bitcoin's problem, not Ethereum's

If bitcoin and Ethereum had been invented on the same day, nobody would have heard of bitcoin. I sold every bitcoin Bit Digital held and deployed the proceeds into Ethereum. I have built one of the largest corporate Ethereum treasury positions in the world and said, on the record, that we will never sell it. People have asked me to articulate the single strongest argument for that conviction. On March 30, 2026, that argument arrived. Last month, Citi confirmed it.

In a research note published on May 18, Citi analysts warned that quantum computing advances have shortened the timeline for practical attacks on digital assets, and reached a conclusion that should give every institutional bitcoin holder pause: bitcoin faces significantly greater quantum risk than Ethereum, and the gap between them comes down not just to technology but to governance.

One might ask: can't bitcoin simply upgrade? Yes, in theory. In practice, this is where the risk compounds.

Bitcoin's governance is intentionally conservative and consensus-driven, which makes it extraordinarily slow. SegWit took roughly 8.5 years from conception to widespread adoption. Taproot took approximately 7.5 years. The current quantum proposals, BIP-360 and BIP-361, are still at the draft or early testnet stage as of 2026. A full base-layer transition to post-quantum signatures would be the most contentious change bitcoin has ever attempted. As Carter documented, most bitcoin Core developers have expressed limited concern about urgency, a disposition that is, at minimum, a serious governance liability for any institution holding bitcoin in treasury. A quantum breakthrough does not politely wait for committee consensus.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/opinion/2026/06/10/the-quantum-clock-is-ticking-it-s-bitcoin-s-problem-not-ethereum-s

[satashi_nokamato]

In any case, we are not experts on quantum computers. We can only follow the news updates.

I'm not gonna claim on being an expert part of your statement,  However AFAIK, BTC and that other coin both are equally at risk IF a magical QC suddenly surfaces.


About the concerns around the provided time table examples I must add;  when @satoshi starts moving his coins to Q-R wallets, it would only take less than 6 month for the whole crypto community to follow him. 

Remember, any system needs leader/s, without one they would just collapse. @satoshi is just a bit shy, that's all.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Every time we keep hearing about quantum computers being a threat to bitcoin network, there have been lot of discussions that have been causing fear of missing out all because they don't want anything that could render their investment in Bitcoin to be taken away by a near threat or attack from the quantum system, maybe it is high time that we shift our concentration from some of these outlet that features with unnecessary information that could discourage us about our adoption with Bitcoin.

[stompix]

I love how there are two types of FUD

- Normal FUD, for everyone in the world, that means fear, uncertainty, and doubt
- FUD for crypto owners, that translates into "things I don't like."

China banned crypto? Nope, it's FUD!
FTX collapsed, no, it's FUD!
Saylor sold, no, it's FUD!
It's Bitcoin at 63k, yes it is but it's also FUD!

In any case, we are not experts on quantum computers.

But not being one doesn't stop you from thinking that the quantum threat is FUD! 

[beryybe]

Exactly. Jumping straight to the conclusion that a "crypto-apocalypse" is just around the corner feels like pure clickbait. The tech industry is fully aware of quantum threats, and quantum-resistant cryptography (like post-quantum algorithms) is already being actively developed and tested. Crypto will adapt long before quantum computers become commercially viable for breaking encryption. Looking forward to your updates on this!

[KiaKia]

The threat is real, I am not going to pretend as if it's nothing, it's really something to look out for and if every Devs are going to pretend as if the threat isn't real there will surely be some damages.

But they are aware and preparing already, why should we now focus on such fear? People are investing in Bitcoin, including big people around the world, those who can find or sniff threat from afar if truly the QC threat is going to affect Bitcoin, yet they are buying.

What is that telling you? It's stupid to react to such things when the whole world is fully aware and preparing.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Worth noting the article author is the same guy who dumped all his BTC into ETH and runs an Ethereum treasury, so of course he's writing this bullshit.

The whole thing rests on the assumption that a crypto-breaking quantum machine is actually existent and around the corner. Definitely Ethereum will be fine with its quantum-safe algos if Bitcoin crashes! 

[uchegod-21]

Quantum FUD? It is funny how we have gotten to the stage where even Bitcoin enthusiasts are now predicting the downfall of Bitcoin. I am not saying that the quantum threat is not real; I know that it is a threat we should all acknowledge, but definitely not to the point where we should consider dumping Bitcoin.

I am convinced that when we get to that bridge, we will cross it. Bitcoin has survived lots of challenges and threats in the past; the quantum threat would be just one of them.

The quantum threat doesn't only affect Bitcoin; other blockchains will also be affected. Developers won't just sit idle; they will work on stronger cryptography that can withstand the threat. Bitcoin will adapt.

[Cookdata]

The threat is real, I am not going to pretend as if it's nothing, it's really something to look out for and if every Devs are going to pretend as if the threat isn't real there will surely be some damages.

But they are aware and preparing already, why should we now focus on such fear? People are investing in Bitcoin, including big people around the world, those who can find or sniff threat from afar if truly the QC threat is going to affect Bitcoin, yet they are buying.

What is that telling you? It's stupid to react to such things when the whole world is fully aware and preparing.

Nobody is disputing that Quantum computer is fake and people should not be inform but the way we want it represented should be a responsible one and not like the ones most of these animals are doing to scared investors and holders. If you see people people that sit behind keyboards that write this epistle article, most likely they don't have a single sats on their wallet, they just write what comes to their head for the attention for the moment.

Who will write something negative about Bitcoin if they had one? There is already a proposal and many suggestions on how to move forward, it's not cause for alarm. I'm very sure that article writer did his research and got all the development but he decided to skip that part and focus on what he wants to see or perhaps what he wants people to see with him. Good thing, he isn't the only one doing this, maybe more will write something worse than this one but Quantum will be a something of past one day.

[Ambatman]

Lol I would say they have balls
I doubt I can say all these with a straight face
They took a sad gamble and chose ethereum now they drowning
And trying to use the FUD if it can give them an edge.
Etheruem face as much risk if not worse than Bitcoin.

[Karl_3000]

- FUD for crypto owners, that translates into "things I don't like."

China banned crypto? Nope, it's FUD!
FTX collapsed, no, it's FUD!
Saylor sold, no, it's FUD!
It's Bitcoin at 63k, yes it is but it's also FUD!

But the bitcoin quantum FUD is different, there have been many reports that I have read, including the one for Google that intensified the bitcoin quantum FUD that quantum computers can be able to know bitcoin private key from public key in just 8 minutes but all these have not been a reason that bitcoin price fell in the past till now but it will be good to migrate bitcoin to post quantum time.

[stompix]

But the bitcoin quantum FUD is different, there have been many reports that I have read, including the one for Google that intensified the bitcoin quantum FUD that quantum computers can be able to know bitcoin provate key from public key in just 8 minutes but all these have not been a reason that bitcooorkce fell in the past till now but it will be good to migrate bitcoin to post quantum time.

Next time you quote me, write in English!
Or, better yet, if you only want to shitpost your quota, don't quote me again!

[Karl_3000]

Next time you quote me, write in English!
Or, better yet, if you only want to shitpost your quota, don't quote me again!

You just jumped to make conclusion, you should know that post was typo error which I edited in less than 2 minutes. Before you posted the second, I have edited it few minutes before that time.

[mcdouglasx]

FUD is the trend in crypto, just like influencer disputes are in X; everything is sensationalism these days. To break crypto, you wouldn't just need a quantum computer, but algorithms that know how to leverage it, since brute force, even with quantum computing or current algorithms, falls short. So, that's just because of sensationalism. I'm starting to think that not even the author of that news story believes what he wrote.

[PrivacyG]

The article starts by telling you that Bitcoin is nothing compared to Ethereum and continues to talk about how bad Bitcoin is and how everyone should move on to Ethereum because it is not perfect but the best.

The Internet is full of these kind of articles.  If we should be afraid of computing progressing so fast that it will out pace Bitcoin then we should be not only afraid about Bitcoin but about Ethereum too.  Because if Ethereum is protected against Quantum Computing while Bitcoin can only 'theoretically' upgrade then who guarantees Ethereum can out pace the next threat.  It can theoretically upgrade for the next threat too, but only in theory!

We are looking at an article written by an Ethereum fan trying to bring more institutional investors to Bitcoin.  That is it.

[Olotu20]

I seriously believe that the world of crypto currency is seriously gearing up for the so called doom day that has been prophesied by so called quantum experts. Which are said to be developing computers that will be able to breakdown the cryptography that is behind Bitcoin. In thesame way we are aware of quantum resistant computers, there is hope this issue of quantum threat is been over hyped if you ask.

[PrivacyG]

there is hope this issue of quantum threat is been over hyped if you ask.

Technology will ultimately progress to a point where the current Bitcoin becomes vulnerable unless it keeps up with the news.  It is said that technology is progressing way slower than it used to but it is still progressing pretty fast if you ask me.

Only hoping that it is over hyped is not a smart thing in my opinion.  But it does not mean we are about to see the Bitcoin Apocalypse, it only means knowing that realistically Bitcoin will not be invincible in front of some future threats but it will eventually, hopefully avoid them all by adapting.

[Alphakilo]

FUD is the trend in crypto, just like influencer disputes are in X; everything is sensationalism these days. To break crypto, you wouldn't just need a quantum computer, but algorithms that know how to leverage it, since brute force, even with quantum computing or current algorithms, falls short. So, that's just because of sensationalism. I'm starting to think that not even the author of that news story believes what he wrote.

I agree with you on the confusion of the author of the news story too because Bitcoin developers and hardcore believers understand the math better and that means it's ability to overcome whatever threat the introduction of quantum computers would cause. There would of course be anti quantum programming to combat the brute force quantum computers pose and that's just because the early and current Bitcoin developers are thinking way ahead before the arrival of quantum computers.

 

[Patikno]

It appears that this article is creating another type of fud that is based on the assumption that a quantum computer that will destroy the cryptospace will be created soon. This is headshaking to write this article with this as the author's big assumption.

In any case, we are not experts on quantum computers. We can only follow the news updates. I will share more news updates on this developing storyline.

There are several questions, and statements about my opinion regarding this "quantum computer" topic being discussed.

Wouldn't creating, and using a quantum computer be extremely expensive? , and wouldn't an attack on crypto (for example, Bitcoin) consume a significant amount of power?

In theory, quantum computing has extremely high computing power, and could threaten Bitcoin security. However, the costs are also not cheap, and would require enormous power, including maintenance costs. From what I have read, AI (artificial intelligence) data centers alone require significant costs for cooling systems, the cost of generating power from power plants, and I am sure this has something to do with quantum computers. Furthermore, there is news about Google plans to build a new data center in Chile being rejected. So, I believe using quantum computers for attacks is very difficult, and there are many obstacles.

References : bbc.com - Artificial intelligence is draining our drinking water supply, for what? ( Please, use translation from "Indonesian" language to "English" )
                      bloomberg.com - AI is Draining Water from Areas that need it most

Furthermore, I believe the use of quantum computers should not be arbitrary, meaning it must have a legitimate purpose. If they could be used arbitrarily, or for any purpose, then I don't think Bitcoin would be the first target of a quantum computer attack. Instead, other security systems are weaker than Bitcoin, and I suspect centralized security systems are highly vulnerable to such attacks, which means they are more likely to be easily hacked using quantum computers. Well, I don't know how far along quantum computers are, and I haven't found any references to them, but once they are perfected, I am sure there will be plenty of news about attacks on weaker security systems. Cmiiw.

[d5000]

I don't think the "quantum risk" is FUD. It's a real threat to take into account. But this article is FUD. It omits deliberately all the effort Bitcoin developers (including Blockstream) have already dedicated to find a reasonable path to quantum resistance (SHRINCS, SHRIMPS, Tadge Dryja's recovery mechanism ...).

The nice thing is: Everybody can be reasonably safe for years if he simply stops to re-use addresses.

And then there is this sentence which is almost a caricature:

He estimates a quantum computer could meaningfully break elliptic curve cryptography as early as 2028. Approximately 6.9 million BTC could be vulnerable at a sufficient quantum scale, including legacy wallets and Taproot outputs, which already represented more than 21% of all bitcoin transactions in 2025.

First, the "2028" date the article cites is NOT for a quantum computer that can break Bitcoin's ECC in 10 minutes. It's for a quantum computer which would be able to break a elliptic cryptography key, but probably would take years, or only be able to break small keys like the cryptographic puzzles. I have read no sources for such an early date for a full Bitcoin key. These QCs still need thousands of logical qubits and that's still quite far away.

Second, the Taproot outputs are almost all "d*ckb*tt" transactions (as PepeLapiu likes to call them, i.e. memecoins and NFTs based on Ordinals) and the resulting outputs are too small to be a real incentive for a quantum hacker.

P2PK and above all re-used addresses are the biggest targets. Both can be migrated now to a safe address.

Now the horror scenario the author paints is that in a few years quantum computers could exist that crack a key in 10 minutes. You would be trapped, right? Would never be able to move your precious coins, because they are on that olde ECDSA address!

Incorrect ... a simple softfork could provide a recovery mechanism for all coins on addresses where never a public key has been exposed. It's still better if people are able to migrate earlier to post-quantum cryptography. But even if Shor-capable QCs arrive before Bitcoin has post-quantum cryptography: between "a QC that cracked an old key in a year" and "a QC that cracked a key on the fly while transacting" there will be probably years of time to do that.