I just recently saw a discussion about the quantum threat at the Bitcoin conference, honestly this topic has always been quite controversial. Some say that quantum computers can really crack ECDSA, which is the cryptographic method Bitcoin currently relies on; once someone has the public key, they can reverse-engineer the private key. That sounds truly terrifying. But others believe that we are far from building a quantum computer with cryptographic significance, as many quantum breakthroughs in the past have not materialized. However, some physicists warn that a quantum computer could appear within ten years, which has split the community into two factions.

Interestingly, the Bitcoin community is not just sitting idly by. On the technical side, proposals like BIP 360 are already being pushed forward, allowing users to prepare in advance for post-quantum cryptography without breaking existing security assumptions. Although there is not yet a perfect post-quantum encryption algorithm that can fully replace secp256k1, and post-quantum signatures produce data sizes that are astonishingly large (100 times bigger than traditional signatures), and verification costs are ten times higher, ongoing technological research is seen as a necessary insurance for Bitcoin.

Another core issue is the 1.1 million bitcoins mined early by Satoshi. According to statistics, approximately 6.9 million bitcoins (about 35% of the total supply) are potentially exposed to quantum threats, mainly those using old P2PK formats or addresses that have been reused. The community has different opinions about these dormant assets: some insist on doing nothing, believing that changing the protocol would break Bitcoin’s social contract; others advocate for a hard fork to freeze these coins to prevent quantum attackers from dumping; still, others propose the “Hourglass Plan,” limiting each block to transfer only a small amount of Bitcoin. Although some quantum companies see Satoshi’s coins as potential profit targets, the community seems to prefer respecting the original rules.

From a practical perspective, even if quantum computers emerge, they won’t threaten everyone immediately. The initial operational costs are extremely high; cracking a single private key might cost over $50k, meaning small holders will remain safe for a long time. Quantum attacks in the early stages will only target exchanges or large institutional assets. As more institutional investors enter, risk management becomes increasingly important. For these large entities, Bitcoin’s immutable nature is its core appeal. Short-term, there might be FUD suppressing prices, but this pressure actually drives Bitcoin’s technological evolution. The future of Bitcoin should be based on evidence and rationality, activating appropriate defense mechanisms at the right time to ensure holders can transition smoothly.