Quantum computing may not be as much of an immediate threat to Bitcoin as some have warned, and any real risk might still be years away.
“Bitcoin’s quantum vulnerability is not an immediate crisis but a foreseeable engineering consideration, with ample time for adaptation,“ researchers at the firm wrote.
Such attacks that are aimed at Bitcoin are not imminent because breaking its core cryptography would require quantum machines far beyond anything that exists today, the researchers argue.
Estimates cited by CoinShares suggest an attacker would need millions of qubits, which are orders of magnitude more than current systems, to crack a key within hours or days.
Researchers estimate that even the most advanced quantum computers are 10 to 100,000 times too weak to pose a real-world threat, pushing meaningful risk into the 2030s or later.
Still, legacy addresses could be vulnerable over long timeframes, while attacking active transactions would require near-instant computations that remain far out of reach.
CoinShares said the theoretical quantum risk to Bitcoin stems from algorithms that could eventually expose cryptographic keys or weaken hashing, but stressed that these threats are distant and narrowly scoped.
The firm estimates that about 1.7 million BTC, or roughly 8% of supply, sit in legacy P2PK addresses with exposed public keys, while modern address types hide keys until coins are spent and cannot affect Bitcoin’s supply cap or proof-of-work.
Even in an extreme scenario, CoinShares argued the market impact would be limited, with at most around 10,000 BTC realistically able to be compromised and sold suddenly.
More aggressive fixes could secure the network earlier, but the firm warns they also carry risks, including software bugs, forced assumptions about dormant coins, and erosion of Bitcoin’s neutrality and trust, making gradual, voluntary migration the preferred path.
The takeaway appears to be all about process. CoinShares said in its note that Bitcoin has clear upgrade paths if quantum threats materialize, allowing the network to adapt without disruption, and that the risk should be weighed against fundamentals rather than speculative worst-case scenarios.
