Quantum computing is no longer just science fiction or the stuff of cypherpunk paranoia. This is officially the world's first full-scale threat to stateless money. If you thought Satoshi's work was free of existential risks, think again. What would you say about the latest round of Bitcoiners and cryptographers featured in the latest Human Rights Foundation (HRF) report?
Quantum computing is the “biggest risk” to Bitcoin
A detailed breakdown of HRF argues that Bitcoin is more than a speculative play. It's a lifeline for activists, journalists and dissidents facing financial repression under the dictatorship. Bitcoin's decentralization, privacy, and permissionless access keep donations flowing and savings out of reach of government seizures.
But all that magic relies on strong encryption. And quantum computing is the only technological leap that has the power to shatter the invisible shield. Quantum computing puts about $700 billion of Bitcoin at risk. The remaining 4.49 million will only be safe if their owners act quickly and move to quantum-resistant addresses.
Researchers are rushing to deploy quantum-secure upgrades, but nothing can be rushed in the Bitcoin world. That means a heated debate over whether to “burn” the stuck coins (and stick a fork into Bitcoin's neutrality) or risk being plundered by quantum thieves.
What's more, quantum-resistant transactions would bloat the blockchain and turn Bitcoin's scaling problems from a mild headache into a major one. This is more than just a technical puzzle. This is a test of the network's willingness to evolve without breaking what made Bitcoin special in the first place. Coin Metrics co-founder and Bitcoin advocate Nick Carter puts it bluntly in his recent book:
“In my opinion, quantum computing is the biggest risk to Bitcoin. It’s a big, pressing problem for many financial systems and a lot of other blockchains, but it’s a big, intractable problem for Bitcoin in some ways.”
How much Bitcoin is at risk?
The HRF report revealed that approximately 6.5 million Bitcoins (nearly one-third of all BTC) are currently vulnerable to “long-range” quantum attacks. These attacks target old or reused address types. Of this amount, owners could theoretically secure 4.49 million coins by transferring their balance to a quantum-resistant address.
What about the prey? This freezes 1.7 million BTC in time, including Satoshi's legendary 1.1 million BTC, leaving it widely exposed to quantum thieves when the day comes. Quantum threats boil down to two main attack vectors: long-range attacks and short-range attacks.
Long-range attacks exploit exposed public keys and target dormant or reused addresses. A short-range attack exploits the transaction window and steals funds before the attacker can verify whether the private key can be computed in real time.
“Burn” or be burned: Protocol politics
Bitcoin's decentralized upgrade process is both its greatest asset and its greatest weakness here. Unlike Apple's latest OS updates, Bitcoin does not receive automatic security fixes. Consensus means drama and is often measured in years rather than weeks.
The “burn or steal” debate rages on. Should developers burn quantum-vulnerable coins, freeze them, or leak lost wallets to quantum thieves? No one agrees, but that's not surprising for a project obsessed with property rights, censorship resistance, and anti-government. The report concludes:
“Upgrading Bitcoin to withstand quantum threats is as much a human challenge as it is cryptographic. A successful soft fork that integrates quantum-resistant signature schemes will require user education, thoughtful user interface design, and coordination across the global ecosystem, including users, developers, hardware manufacturers, node operators, and civil society.”
Great new algorithms, bigger blocks, new worries
The move to quantum-proof algorithms is more than just a technical supplement. HRF emphasizes two classes of solutions: lattice-based and hash-based signature schemes, each with different tradeoffs. Bigger keys mean bigger transactions, fewer transactions per block, heavier full nodes, and potentially a whole new chapter in Bitcoin's scaling wars.
For reference, lattice-based signatures are approximately 10 times larger than current signatures, while the most compact hash-based signatures are 38 times larger. All technical fixes will require wallet redesigns, hardware updates, node operator retraining, and global user education.
The community will need to coordinate across programmers, wallet builders, advocacy groups, and millions of skeptical holders (many of whom don't even know their coins are vulnerable). History has shown that even friendly upgrades can take years to complete, and with the quantum computing timeline still uncertain, the window for action could close sooner than expected.
What comes next: resilience or destruction?
Permanent fixes require grassroots buy-in, not just GitHub commits. The fate of forgotten Bitcoin (and perhaps the legitimacy of its ecosystem) will depend on how the network navigates these political, technological, and social battles over the next decade.
For Bitcoin rebels, cypherpunks, and involuntary exiles, the message is clear. Keep educating and keep upgrading. Don't assume Satoshi's armor is permanently bulletproof. As Bitcoin security expert, core developer, and Casa co-founder Jameson Ropp has warned, even more than quantum computing, the biggest threat to Bitcoin is apathy.
“If people are disinterested in continuing to talk about improving Bitcoin, at that point Bitcoin becomes weaker and more vulnerable to new threats that may emerge.”
