---
id: "open-question-quantum-computing-threat"
type: "open-question"
source_timestamps: ["08:30:00", "09:05:00"]
tags: ["technology", "security", "future-risks"]
related: ["concept-bitcoin-adaptability"]
resolutionPath: "Observation of Bitcoin core development successfully proposing, testing, and achieving consensus on a quantum-resistant protocol upgrade before quantum computers become a viable threat."
sources: ["carlasare"]
sourceVaultSlug: "cardone-carlasare-bitcoin-macro-2026Jun25"
originDay: 3
---
# How Will Bitcoin Handle the Threat of Quantum Computing?

## The Question

Will Bitcoin successfully upgrade to quantum-resistant cryptography **before** sufficiently powerful quantum computers can break the ECDSA signatures securing its addresses?

## Why It Matters

If a quantum computer running Shor's algorithm could derive a private key from a revealed public key, then any Bitcoin address that has ever signed a transaction (i.e., revealed its public key) becomes vulnerable. That includes most active addresses.

## The State of Play (from enrichment)

- **Cryptographic risk is real.** Bitcoin's ECDSA signatures *could* be broken by a sufficiently powerful quantum computer.
- **Timeline is uncertain.** Large-scale general-purpose quantum computers capable of breaking ECDSA are not yet available and are widely considered years away.
- **Solutions are being developed.** Post-quantum signature schemes (e.g., lattice-based) are under active research; NIST has run a post-quantum cryptography standardization project.
- **For Bitcoin specifically:** no quantum-resistant fork is currently specified or scheduled. The community has the *capacity* to coordinate an upgrade (per [[concept-bitcoin-adaptability]]) but has not yet *tested* that capacity under existential pressure.

## Resolution Path

Observe whether the Bitcoin core development process can successfully:

1. Specify a post-quantum signature scheme.
2. Test and review it.
3. Achieve rough consensus among developers, miners, and node operators.
4. Coordinate a soft-fork or hard-fork activation.

...all **before** quantum computers become a viable threat.

## Who Would Push For This?

According to [[entity-joe-carlasare|Carlasare]], institutional holders like [[entity-blackrock|BlackRock]] and advocates like [[entity-michael-saylor|Michael Saylor]] would lobby aggressively for such an upgrade. Their capital exposure aligns their incentives with timely action.

## Related

- [[concept-bitcoin-adaptability]]


## Related across days
- [[claim-quantum-computing-not-a-threat]]
- [[concept-bitcoin-adaptability]]
- [[cross-quantum-and-protocol-risks]]