Is Bitcoin Safe from Quantum Computers?
You probably shouldn’t drink the fear-hype Kool-Aid about your Bitcoin being gobbled up by quantum computers just yet.
I personally believe that a lot of the hype cycle may be curiously designed to push CBDCs that are not a decentralised currency. CBDCs are not a decentralised currency.
But let’s not get too comfy; a little proactive paranoia can go a long way. I have learned this from personal experience.
Knowing that a lot of Bitcoin holders like me are not technical geniuses, I have tried to non-tech this as much as humanly possible.
Imagine your Bitcoin as a treasure chest, locked up tight with today’s best cryptographic locks. Now picture a super-genius lock-picker—a quantum computer—someday with enough time and fuelled by never-ending computational sandwiches to keep them going, they will be able to pick it open.
That’s where the idea of a cryptographic “wrapper” comes in. Think of it as a high-tech cloak draped over your Bitcoin, making it invisible to quantum lock-pickers.
Sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, right? Well, sci-fi has a funny way of turning into “Tuesday afternoon” sooner than you think. As someone who was aghast at the development of the “impossible” mobile phone, I can attest to this fact.
NB: QSECDEF a BlockChain Quantum Security Course
But before you panic, let’s clear the air.
Today’s quantum computers are like toddlers with a screwdriver trying to take apart a space shuttle. Sure, they’re trying, but they’re not even close to cracking these locks.
The biggest quantum computers—like IBM’s ‘Condor’ with 1,121 qubits or Atom Computing’s 1,180 qubits—are impressive, but they’re noisy, error-prone, and nowhere near cracking Bitcoin.
Even if someone somewhere (like China) secretly built a 5,000-qubit quantum computer, it’d only amount to a handful of “logical qubits,” which are the ones that matter.
Spoiler: Although this level of quantum computation would have, and does have, hundreds of positive society-changing positive benefits today, it’s still far from enough to crack Bitcoin’s encryption.
Bitcoin’s Locks
Bitcoin uses two main types of cryptographic locks:
- ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm): This signs transactions, and it’s theoretically vulnerable to Shor’s Algorithm (quantum’s version of lock-picking).
- SHA-256: This hashes data for proof-of-work and block mining, and it could theoretically be sped up by Grover’s Algorithm (quantum’s “shortcut” for brute-forcing).
Now, here’s the rub: Breaking these locks with today’s quantum computers is like trying to outrun a cheetah while wearing flip-flops. The math just isn’t on your side yet.
For example, cracking ECDSA would require 2,330 logical qubits. With today’s error correction needing 1,000 physical qubits to make one logical qubit, we’re talking about 2.3 million physical qubits.
That’s like needing a spaceship and only having a skateboard. Although skateboards are incredibly useful, like quantum computers today, we can’t achieve interstellar travel on a skateboard (at least without hallucinogenic mushrooms).
But What About Tomorrow?
Let’s crank up the sci-fi dial.
Imagine quantum computers improving by 1,000% per year (yes, that may be ridiculous, but humour me, even though really we are nowhere near that today).
By 2028, we might have the 2.3 billion qubits needed to crack ECDSA. SHA-256 would take a bit longer, maybe the early 2030s. But even then, you’d need error correction to work perfectly, and we’re far from that.
Corporate cryptography is different, it doesn’t always use this type of encryption- I explain how here. And certainly DeFi infrastructures needs urgent attention as they are not always secure as bitcoin is now.
However! Watch for Curve Balls
Some clever folks are working on virtual quantum computers. These simulated systems could optimise and refine quantum attacks before we even have the hardware to run them.
Add in Quantum Machine Learning (QML), and things get even spicier.
Imagine AI teaching itself to break encryption faster by analysing patterns or shortcuts. This quantum-AI tag team could someday rewrite the rules of cryptography.
Ok - I have massively simplified QML, but this is a simplified article.
Open Minds and Logical Critical Thinking
- Murphy’s Law: “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.” If we don’t start quantum-proofing Bitcoin now, we may be setting ourselves up for a nasty surprise.
- Amara’s Law: “We overestimate technology in the short term but underestimate it in the long term.” Sure, quantum computers aren’t breaking Bitcoin tomorrow, but dismissing their future impact is like ignoring a snowball rolling down a mountain.
- Lindy’s Law: “The longer something survives, the longer it’s likely to survive.” Bitcoin has weathered over a decade of challenges, but its longevity depends on adapting to threats—like quantum computing—before they become existential.
So, What’s the Bottom Line?
Should you sell all your Bitcoin and stockpile canned goods?
No. Far from it.
But does it make sense to start building a quantum-safe cryptographic cloak for Bitcoin?
Absolutely.
The risk may be small today, but history has a way of turning “small risks” into “big oops moments” overnight.
Stay sharp and don’t drink the hype Kool-Aid—quantum or otherwise. For now, your Bitcoin is safe, and it’s likely to be safe in the future, but this statement may well age badly.
At the same time, your individual Satoshis may be small beer compared to the opportunities and impacts on our traditional financial system in general.
Government legislation and traditional hacking attacks are a bigger threat to your bitcoin holdings than Quantum Computers today, and there are already teams much smarter than I will ever be working on Bitcoin Post-Quantum :
Also, Quantum computers are really useful today, they are already being used - see my article on why Jason Huang is wrong about Quantum, Quantum is at its 32K moment - its only going to get better, faster, stronger and sexier in its applications.
And hey, I’m not an expert on cryptography or Bitcoin—just a guy on his couch eating a peanut butter sandwich, trying to make sense of it all.
If you’ve got corrections or insights, drop them in the comments. I’ll read every one, probably with a second sandwich.
