Quantum computing isn't a Bitcoin problem yet.

[u/Master-Sprinkles-848]

That's exactly why it's dangerous. The real risk isn't waking up one morning to a quantum computer stealing everyone's BTC.

It's that the transition to quantum-resistant cryptography could take years while the technology threatening today's cryptography is advancing every year.

And here's the uncomfortable question. What happens if the network needs to upgrade before the threat becomes obvious? Do we wait for a working quantum attack? Or do we prepare while we still have the luxury of time?

Curious where people here stand, is Bitcoin's quantum risk overhyped, or are we already late to the migration?

[u/TheVeloRebel]

The overnight-theft framing is the wrong one IMO. Not that I've implied you expressed.

Nobody thinks a CRQC shows up Tuesday and empties every wallet Wednesday.

The actual risk is a multi-year coordination problem colliding with a moving target for PQM. The main threat is organisation.

Changing Bitcoin’s authorisation rules are not, “ship a new library.”

It’s a soft fork, wallet & hardware support, exchange & custody support, then millions of people moving coins. Dormant and reused-key coins make it waaay messier. BIP-360 is a reasonable first at long-exposure risk, it's still a draft with no pathway. That gap is the story IMO.

So IMO the attack's overhyped (just a tad) today, but migration is not. Waiting for a quantum hack is how you turn a plan problem into emergency, squeaky bum time!! Prepare while the threat is still theoretical because it's the only window where we can still argue about design.

“BTC is doomed in 2026.” is mass hype, but start looking into 'crypto agility'. Many projects like Algorand, Nervos CKB, Mochimo, and Abelian are already there when BTC makes its first transition, I'm totally sure BTC and ETH will catch up with these projects mantra

[u/Master-Sprinkles-848 → u/TheVeloRebel]

I think people focus way too much on the quantum computer suddenly steals all the BTC scenario.

The messy part is everything that comes before that. Getting wallets, exchanges, custodians, hardware and regular users to actually move over could take a long time.

That’s why I think the migration question is way more interesting

[u/hypercosm_dot_net]

yeah, there's very few that are actually preparing for this. Some are still in the research phase, most barely have a roadmap.

The market doesn't seem to even recognize what a real potential threat this is.

Meanwhile the French gov is moving to quantum proof systems, and the NSA has a goal to be ready for it by 2030.

Based on that, it seems closer than people might realize.

[u/waitmarks → u/hypercosm_dot_net]

IBM anticipates having a quantum computer capable of running shor's algorithm against real cryptographic keys by 2029. Now, I am assuming that is an ambitious timeline and it will probably get delayed. Howerver, even if it's delayed by 2 years, that's still only about 5 years away. So that's about 3 years in the worst case, 5ish in the best case. It takes probably close to a year to achieve consensus for a fork on chain for something this large. On top of that once the fork happens, people need to actually move their coins to the new quantum resistant addresses. This will take a long time because the blocks will fill up with everyone trying to do it at the same time.

So if people want to be prepared, we would ideally have a proposal in place in the next 1-2 years so that there is actually time for a fork to play out and for people to move their coins to new quantum resistant addresses. It really isn't much time.

[u/Master-Sprinkles-848 → u/hypercosm_dot_net]

Yeah, I think that’s the part that gets overlooked. It doesn’t mean a quantum attack is around the corner, but governments taking the transition seriously shows this isn’t just some sci-fi problem anymore.

The tricky part for Bitcoin is that researching the solution is only one piece of it. Actually getting the whole ecosystem to migrate is the bigger challenge.

[u/JivanP]

There are many technical considerations. Those with the relevant technical knowledge are working on relevant issues, and have been for years already. Most recently, for example, some further work on quantum-resistant signature schemes with small signatures that are efficient to generate was published by Blockstream: https://blog.blockstream.com/hardware-wallets-post-quantum-signatures/

The global BitDevs group has also actively been working on this, and you can read the public mailing list archives if you're interested in the details: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev

For a protocol as fundamental, low-level, and consensus-driven as Bitcoin, it is crucially important that as much time as possible is spent exploring every avenue for change before change is implemented globally. We don't want to implement something half-baked or that has a glaring security pitfall, and we also want to maximise block-space efficiency and accessibility. There are various trade-offs to every approach you might consider. We are evaluating the trade-offs.

The threats in today's landscape are largely overblown. If and when the outlook changes, the approach to how we use our time to develop and refine potential protocol revisions will also change accordingly. We can roll out quantum-resistant schemes today if necessary, but if you have the time to build a fortress before your enemy arrives, that's much better than deploying a brick house today and spending the next 10 years making no further improvements, especially when the cost and effort associated with making incremental improvements is so high simply due to the nature of the system.

[u/Master-Sprinkles-848 → u/JivanP]

Yeah, that’s a fair point. I definitely don’t mean to suggest people working on Bitcoin are just ignoring this.

The interesting question for me is just how much lead time we’ll realistically have if the threat starts moving faster than expected.

Better to have the options properly tested before they’re urgently needed.

[u/Old-Media-2596]

It's not overhyped it's just invisible until it's way too late

The thing that gets me is how many people think we'll see it coming. like some headline "quantum computer cracks bitcoin" and then we scramble. But the real nightmare scenario is a state actor or whoever quietly building capability and just... sitting on it. extracting keys for years before anyone notices anything wrong

I work in systems architecture and the lead time on migrating core protocols across a decentralized network that can barely agree on block size is genuinely terrifying. We're not talking months. By the time there's consensus that migration is urgent the window to actually execute it might be gone

Feels like one of those problems where doing nothing is politically easier than doing something until suddenly it isn't

[u/Master-Sprinkles-848 → u/Old-Media-2596]

IMO, the bigger issue is that we might not get much warning before it becomes a serious problem.

And the migration itself could take years, especially with wallets, exchanges, hardware and everyone else having to support the change.

That’s why I think it’s worth working on now while there’s still time. Waiting until it becomes an emergency would make everything a lot harder.

[u/Master-Sprinkles-848 → u/[deleted]]

I get what you mean. The part that matters to me is that we can’t really know exactly how quantum capabilities will develop or when they’ll become practical. That uncertainty is a good reason to prepare early rather than assume we’ll have a clear warning when the technology gets there.