Digital asset manager CoinShares says quantum computing is not an immediate threat to Bitcoin, with only a small share of Bitcoin realistically exposed to a theoretical quantum attack.
The firm argues that current machines are far too weak to break core cryptography and that the network has time to adapt.
The research, led by CoinShares Bitcoin research head Christopher Bendiksen, estimates that while a pool of older addresses exposes public keys, the number of coins that could be seized and sold quickly is limited, and any attack would not change Bitcoin’s supply cap or proof-of-work.
Limited exposure to quantum attacks
According to a CoinShares research note, “Bitcoin’s quantum vulnerability is not an immediate crisis but a foreseeable engineering consideration, with ample time for adaptation.”
The firm argues that while quantum algorithms could eventually threaten signatures or hashing, today’s capabilities fall far short of a practical danger.
CoinShares frames the issue as a process question rather than an emergency.
The network has clear upgrade paths if risks materialize, and any changes should be weighed against fundamentals rather than speculative worst-case scenarios.
CoinShares estimates about 1.7 million BTC, roughly 8% of supply, sit in legacy pay-to-public-key (P2PK) addresses where public keys are exposed.
Bendiksen analyzed a similar pool of about 1.63 million BTC and argued that just 10,230 BTC in that set sit in larger wallets that are actually worth attacking.
He said a little over 7,000 BTC are in addresses holding 100 to 1,000 BTC, and roughly 3,230 BTC are in addresses with 1,000 to 10,000 BTC, together equating to $719.1 million at current prices.
Bendiksen added that such a sale could “resemble a routine trade.”
The remaining 1.62 million BTC in that pool are spread across wallets holding under 100 BTC.
Bendiksen claimed each would take a millennium to unlock even in the “most outlandishly optimistic” quantum advancement scenario, and CoinShares separately argued that at most around 10,000 BTC could realistically be compromised and sold suddenly.
Technology still far from practical risk
CoinShares attributes the theoretical risk to algorithms such as Shor’s, which could break elliptic-curve signatures, and Grover’s, which could weaken SHA-256.
However, the firm stresses that neither could alter Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap or bypass proof-of-work.
Breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography would require machines with millions of fault-tolerant qubits, far beyond the 105 qubits reported for Google’s latest quantum computer, Willow.
Researchers estimate that even the most advanced systems are 10 to 100,000 times too weak, pushing meaningful risk into the 2030s or later, and attacking live transactions would require near-instant computation that is not feasible today.
As Bendiksen put it, “Recent advancements, including demonstrations by Google and others, represent progress but fall short of the scale needed for real-world attacks on Bitcoin.”
Debate over future upgrades
The at-risk coins are unspent transaction outputs tied to addresses with visible keys, many dating back to the Satoshi era.
This has sparked debate over whether to implement a quantum-resistant hard fork now or wait.
Some, including Strategy’s (formerly known as MicroStrategy) Michael Saylor and Blockstream CEO Adam Back, argue the threat is overblown and unlikely to disrupt the network for decades, a view Bendiksen shares.
Others, such as Capriole Investments’ Charles Edwards, see an “existential threat” and say an upgrade now could strengthen security and even lead to a repricing once a solution is in place, with proposals like post-quantum signatures discussed by researchers such as Blockstream’s Jonas Nick.
CoinShares cautions that aggressive fixes can introduce risks ranging from software bugs to forced assumptions about dormant coins, potentially eroding Bitcoin’s neutrality.
The firm favors gradual, voluntary migration as the pragmatic path.
The post CoinShares says quantum computing threat to Bitcoin remains years away appeared first on Invezz
