TLDR

  • Approximately 7 million BTC, valued at around $440 billion, could be susceptible to quantum computing attacks.
  • Roughly 1 million of these coins belong to Satoshi Nakamoto, currently worth about $67.6 billion.
  • Early Bitcoin addresses directly exposed public keys on the blockchain, making them potentially easier to compromise.
  • The Bitcoin community is divided: some advocate for protocol changes to burn or freeze at-risk coins, while others uphold the principle of “code is law.”
  • Experts offer differing timelines — some predict the threat could materialize in 2–3 years, others believe it remains a distant concern.

Close to 7 million bitcoins face potential vulnerability to theft should quantum computers achieve sufficient power to bypass Bitcoin’s cryptographic security.

This amount, highlighted by CryptoQuant founder Ki Young Ju, is presently valued at approximately $440 billion.

Around 1 million of these coins are associated with Bitcoin’s anonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. At the current price of about $67,600 per coin, this particular holding alone is worth approximately $67.6 billion.

The danger stems from the structure of early Bitcoin transactions. In Bitcoin’s initial years, a format known as pay-to-public-key (P2PK) directly embedded public keys onto the blockchain. Modern addresses conceal the key behind a hash until the coins are spent. However, public keys exposed in early transactions remain permanently visible.

A quantum computer with adequate processing power could reverse-engineer these public keys, thereby gaining access to the associated coins.

Why the Bitcoin Community Is Divided

There is no universal agreement on the appropriate course of action. The discussion is broadly split into two viewpoints.

One perspective maintains that Bitcoin should remain neutral, treating all coins equally irrespective of their age or exposure level. Nima Beni, founder of Bitlease, argued that altering the rules for certain coins — even for security reasons — establishes a dangerous precedent.

The opposing view contends that inaction would result in a vast transfer of wealth to the first entity capable of building a functional quantum machine. Jameson Lopp, a prominent developer, deemed such an outcome unjust and characterized quantum attackers as “vampires feeding upon the system.”

Lopp has advocated for a soft fork that would render vulnerable outputs unspendable unless they are transferred to quantum-resistant addresses before a specified deadline.

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino held a contrasting opinion. He suggested that old coins re-entering circulation due to quantum breakthroughs would only cause temporary inflation, which the market would eventually absorb.

A practical challenge also exists. Georgii Verbitskii, founder of TYMIO, noted the absence of a reliable method to distinguish between dormant coins that are permanently lost and those that are simply unspent.

How Close Is the Threat?

Experts hold significantly different opinions regarding the timeline.

Zeynep Koruturk of Firgun Ventures mentioned that the quantum research community was surprised by recent discoveries indicating that fewer physical qubits might be necessary to break RSA-2048 encryption than previously estimated.

She stated that this could reduce the time required to crack such encryption to as little as two to three years, although extensive testing would still be necessary.

Others express less concern. Aerie Trouw, CTO of XYO, asserted that there is “no practical reason to panic” at this time. Frederic Fosco of OP_NET described it as “an engineering problem with a known solution” — upgrading the cryptography.

Most experts concur that Bitcoin Core developers are already exploring quantum-resistant upgrades, and the current debate revolves around whether the community can achieve consensus before the threat becomes imminent.