Leading Cryptographers Remain Divided on Bitcoin’s Biggest Quantum Computing Challenge

A panel assembled by Coinbase has argued that Bitcoin should begin preparing immediately for potential threats posed by quantum computing. However, the group stopped short of endorsing a stance on whether millions of at-risk coins — including large holdings commonly associated with Satoshi Nakamoto — should ultimately be frozen to protect the network.

A Coinbase-organized advisory panel comprising several of the world’s leading cryptography experts has outlined potential strategies for protecting Bitcoin from the threat of future quantum computers capable of compromising millions of coins. However, on the most contentious issue, the group declined to offer a definitive recommendation.

The panel, which provided its report to earlier this week, includes prominent cryptographers such as Scott Aaronson, Dan Boneh, and Justin Drake. The group begins with the view that quantum computers do not currently pose a threat to blockchain networks and that the timing of any future risk remains uncertain, arguing that preparations and discussions should move forward regardless of when that threat may emerge.

The risk is particularly concentrated within Bitcoin. Roughly 1.7 million BTC are held across nearly 20,000 early pay-to-public-key addresses, a structure that reveals the owner’s public key directly on the blockchain, making those holdings more susceptible to potential attacks from future quantum computers.

A large portion of these coins is believed to be linked to Satoshi Nakamoto and other holders who have permanently lost access to their private keys, leaving those assets unable to be transferred to more secure addresses. Project11, a research organization monitoring quantum-related risks, estimates that an additional 5 million BTC are vulnerable due to address reuse, although the majority of those funds are thought to remain in actively managed exchange wallets.

Debate Grows Over Whether Dormant Bitcoin Should Be Forced to Upgrade

Replacing Bitcoin’s current signatures with quantum-resistant alternatives is widely viewed as the simpler challenge, but debate intensifies over coins that remain dormant. One group supports setting a firm cutoff date after which the existing ECDSA and Schnorr signature systems would no longer be recognized, rendering any coins that have not migrated to the new standard unspendable. Advocates of this approach argue that keeping those coins accessible could eventually give a quantum-capable attacker — potentially a sanctioned nation such as North Korea — control over a massive Bitcoin reserve, creating the risk of severe market disruption and undermining confidence in the network’s integrity.

The opposing side views such a measure as a form of confiscation that conflicts with the strong property-rights principles on which Bitcoin was founded. Supporters of this position argue that it could establish a precedent for future coin freezes, potentially opening the door to interventions driven by government pressure.

Positioned between these two viewpoints are several alternative proposals that has monitored and reported on over the last two months.

Under the Hourglass proposal, the number of vulnerable coins that can be spent in each block would be limited to reduce the risk of a sudden surge in supply. Meanwhile, BIP-361, introduced by developer Jameson Lopp and collaborators, would allow users who migrated their holdings to verify ownership after a cutoff date through a quantum-resistant proof that does not reveal any cryptographic key. Another concept, known as PACTs and proposed by Paradigm’s Dan Robinson, would enable holders to record a private ownership claim today and transfer their funds at a later date without disclosing sensitive information in the present.

The Coinbase advisory panel, however, pointed out that these approaches are not mutually exclusive and could be implemented in combination as part of a broader strategy to address quantum-related risks.

What the board has declined to do is endorse any single approach. In its report, the group states that no universally correct solution exists and that the final decision must be made by the broader Bitcoin community. The panel supports only two core principles: technical preparations for a quantum-resistant migration should begin immediately because they are independent of the debate over dormant coins, and clearer guidance should be provided to holders to prevent the issue from remaining unresolved for years.

The council emphasized that it does not take a stance on the debate surrounding abandoned coins, leaving that decision to the broader Bitcoin community. However, it was unequivocal on two points: work on the technical migration should begin immediately, and the development required to support post-quantum signature systems should move forward independently of any governance discussions rather than being delayed by them.

“Communicate clearly. Users need to know this problem is being taken seriously. Uncertainty is its own risk,” it adds.

As the number of proposals continues to grow, increasingly prominent figures are becoming involved in the discussion. Despite the differing approaches, all of the plans share a common message: action should begin now. So far, however, Bitcoin has yet to take significant steps in that direction, while Ethereum has already spent years working on preparations for potential quantum-related challenges.