Tag: quantum

  • Why quantum computing is becoming a real concern for Bitcoin

    Why quantum computing is becoming a real concern for Bitcoin

    Why quantum computing is becoming a real concern for Bitcoin

    • Charles Edwards warns Bitcoin could face sharp price pressure if upgrades are delayed.
    • Banks are already moving toward post-quantum encryption, increasing Bitcoin’s relative exposure.
    • Crypto leaders remain divided on urgency, mitigation strategies, and timelines.

    Quantum computing has long hovered on the fringes of crypto risk discussions, often dismissed as a distant or hypothetical challenge. That framing is now being questioned.

    New warnings from within the Bitcoin ecosystem suggest the technology may become a practical threat sooner than expected, with implications not just for network security but also for market confidence.

    As timelines tighten and views diverge, the debate is shifting from abstract theory to concrete preparedness, raising questions about whether Bitcoin’s current cryptographic foundations are ready for what comes next.

    Quantum threat timelines tighten

    The core concern around quantum computing lies in its potential ability to break widely used cryptographic systems.

    For Bitcoin, this could mean exposing private keys linked to public addresses, allowing attackers to access funds or compromise sensitive data.

    Until recently, most discussions placed this risk decades into the future.

    That assumption was challenged this week by Charles Edwards, founder of quantitative Bitcoin and digital asset fund Capriole.

    In an X post on Wednesday, Edwards suggested that quantum risk could become critical by 2028.

    He argued that if Bitcoin does not become quantum-resistant within that window, the consequences could be severe for both security and price stability.

    His comments pointed to a narrower timeline than many in the industry have assumed.

    Price risk linked to inaction

    Edwards tied the technical challenge directly to market behaviour.

    He warned that failure to deploy a solution by 2028 could see Bitcoin trade well below $50,000 and remain under pressure until the issue is resolved.

    In his view, the lack of urgency stems from complacency, with meaningful action likely only after a significant market downturn forces the issue.

    He has also indicated that any effective quantum patch would need to be rolled out by 2026 to avoid destabilising the network.

    Delays beyond that point, he suggested, could trigger a prolonged and deep bear market driven by eroding confidence rather than a single external shock.

    Why Bitcoin may be exposed

    Sceptics of the quantum threat argue that the technology remains too immature to pose a near-term risk.

    They point out that banks, governments, and large institutions would be targeted first, giving Bitcoin ample warning time to adapt.

    Edwards disputes this view. He has repeatedly argued that Bitcoin could be an early target precisely because of its design.

    Many banks and institutions are already migrating toward post-quantum encryption standards, while Bitcoin continues to rely on existing cryptographic assumptions.

    In addition, fraudulent transactions in traditional finance can often be reversed or blocked, whereas Bitcoin transactions are irreversible once confirmed, increasing the potential impact of any breach.

    A divided crypto response

    Views across the crypto ecosystem remain sharply split on how seriously Bitcoin should treat the quantum threat.

    Some participants argue that interim measures already exist to reduce exposure over the next several years, buying time for more comprehensive upgrades to be designed and implemented at the protocol level.

    Others dismiss the issue as overstated, maintaining that quantum computing remains too underdeveloped to pose a meaningful risk to Bitcoin’s cryptography.

    From this perspective, heightened concern is seen as premature and potentially driven by broader narratives rather than immediate technical realities.

    These contrasting positions underline an unresolved tension within the Bitcoin community.

    As quantum capabilities progress, the discussion is shifting from whether the threat is real to how quickly Bitcoin needs to adapt to safeguard its long-term security.

    Source link

  • Bitcoin faces quantum risk: why SegWit wallets may offer limited protection

    Bitcoin faces quantum risk: why SegWit wallets may offer limited protection

    Bitcoin faces quantum risk: Why SegWit wallets may offer limited protection

    • SegWit wallets delay public key exposure until the point of transaction.
    • Holding Bitcoin in SegWit addresses offers temporary protection if left untouched.
    • Critics believe practical quantum computing remains decades away.

    Quantum computing’s long-theorised threat to Bitcoin is resurfacing in the crypto conversation.

    The idea that a powerful enough quantum machine could break cryptographic security and expose Bitcoin keys has moved from theoretical chatter to practical concern.

    Bitcoin analyst Willy Woo recently suggested a short-term safeguard: store Bitcoin in SegWit addresses for the next seven years.

    While the tactic has sparked debate, the broader community remains divided over whether quantum computers are a real, imminent threat or just the latest tech-driven scare.

    SegWit offers delayed public key exposure

    Segregated Witness (SegWit), introduced on 23 August 2017, is a protocol upgrade that changes how data is stored in Bitcoin transactions. Woo suggests that SegWit’s delayed public key exposure could act as a deterrent against quantum attacks.

    Unlike Taproot, which exposes the public key immediately within the address, SegWit only reveals it during transaction execution.

    This delay makes it harder for a quantum computer to reverse-engineer the private key from the public one before the transaction is completed.

    Under current conditions, exposing a public key does not present much of a problem. However, if and when quantum computing advances to the point of real-time decryption capabilities, the exposure window of Taproot wallets could be a key vulnerability.

    In contrast, SegWit’s hashing conceals the public key behind a layer of encryption until absolutely necessary. This may keep Bitcoin more secure during this anticipated transition period.

    Hodling in SegWit comes with major constraints

    While the SegWit method may offer protection, it carries a critical limitation. According to Woo, users must not move their Bitcoin from the SegWit address.

    Any outgoing transaction would expose the public key, potentially inviting a quantum attack if executed during the transaction.

    As such, this method is not viable for active traders or anyone needing liquidity in the short term. It is a static defence mechanism, not a dynamic solution.

    This approach effectively puts Bitcoin in a vault. It is safe but inaccessible. It is also only as secure as the continued absence of real-time quantum decryption.

    If a breakthrough comes earlier than anticipated, even SegWit-held coins could be compromised during withdrawal. Woo acknowledges that this is only an intermediary measure.

    It is meant to bridge the gap until a quantum-resistant Bitcoin protocol becomes available.

    Experts disagree over SegWit’s efficacy

    Not everyone agrees that SegWit provides any meaningful protection. Charles Edwards, founder of digital asset fund Capriole, has dismissed the idea as ineffective.

    He argues that SegWit is not a quantum-safe model and relying on it could delay necessary network upgrades.

    According to Edwards, the belief that Bitcoin has a seven-year buffer period could create complacency, weakening pressure to accelerate work on quantum-resistant algorithms.

    This disagreement underscores a broader lack of consensus in the crypto space on how seriously the community should take quantum risk.

    Although protocol upgrades are under development, there is concern among developers that current initiatives are progressing too slowly.

    Some argue that existing security layers were not built with quantum capabilities in mind, making them structurally vulnerable regardless of transaction format.

    Sceptics say quantum fears are overblown

    Despite the alarm, some in the community believe the risk is being overstated. Critics point to quantum computing’s persistent technical limitations.

    In a post in February, Bitcoin advocate Adrian Morris claimed quantum tech is “barely viable”, citing issues with thermodynamics, memory, and persistent calculations.

    Others argue that traditional financial systems and major banks would be far more attractive targets for early quantum attacks than a decentralised network like Bitcoin.

    Woo notes that Bitcoin held by custodians, such as ETFs or treasury firms, may be better shielded in the interim. This is only true if those institutions take proactive steps to secure their holdings.

    Until a comprehensive upgrade is implemented, the quantum debate will continue to shape discourse around Bitcoin’s long-term security.

    Source link