Benchmark points out that quantum computing could theoretically threaten Bitcoin's cryptographic security, but this risk remains in the distant future, giving Bitcoin ample time and technological space for upgrades and defenses.
Analyst Mark Palmer believes the real potential vulnerability lies not in the SHA-256 mining algorithm but in the ECDSA signature algorithm used to protect private keys. Once a public key is exposed during a transaction, it could theoretically be subject to a quantum attack. However, there are currently no quantum computers capable of cracking ECDSA, and the likelihood of such computers emerging within the next 10–20 years is low.
Current quantum systems are small in scale and have high error rates, making them incapable of performing the large-scale computations needed to threaten blockchain. Additionally, only about 1–2 million Bitcoins are stored in addresses with exposed public keys, and even this does not yet pose a real security risk.
While it is theoretically possible to intercept funds during the transaction broadcast window, this would require an extremely powerful and highly stable quantum system, making it highly impractical.
The debate around quantum threats is heating up. Some investors, like Michael Saylor, argue that quantum risks are exaggerated and not limited to Bitcoin, while others, such as Jefferies, have reduced their Bitcoin allocations due to long-term security concerns.
Meanwhile, the industry is already taking proactive steps to address these risks: Coinbase has established a quantum advisory committee, and Ethereum has prioritized "post-quantum security" as a strategic focus.
Palmer emphasizes that even if partial asset losses occur, the Bitcoin protocol itself is unlikely to face systemic risks. For investors, quantum computing remains a long-term technological variable, with short-term prices still primarily driven by liquidity, regulation, and institutional adoption rather than quantum advancements.
