Recently, I’ve been pondering a fundamental question: What is the real threat to Bitcoin? It’s not government bans or price volatility, but a deeper mathematical issue—quantum computing.

This matter is actually quite frightening. The 1.1 million Bitcoins in Satoshi’s wallet, along with about 25% of the circulating supply, are exposed to a risk: if someone gains access to a sufficiently powerful quantum computer, cracking these public wallets could become possible. For traditional computers, breaking ECDSA signatures would take millions of years, but a quantum computer might do it in minutes to hours.

The key issue lies in the differences between Bitcoin address types. Early P2PK addresses (including Satoshi’s address) directly embed the public key in the blockchain, like leaving a key in the lock—making it a universal key once quantum computers arrive. Later P2PKH addresses hide the public key behind a hash, but during transactions, the public key still needs to be revealed. This creates a time window: from the moment you initiate a transaction to when it’s confirmed by miners, theoretically, a quantum computer could intercept and crack the key.

The biggest enemy is the uncertainty of timing. Quantum computing might become mature within five years, or it might never materialize, but this uncertainty itself is a risk. Bitcoin needs to proactively migrate to post-quantum cryptography rather than passively wait. If quantum computers appear first, the risk of public wallet cracking could trigger a chain reaction: hundreds of billions of dollars in assets exposed, attackers begin large-scale theft and dumping, prices collapse, and trust erodes.

Implementing quantum-resistant solutions could take at least 6 to 12 months to reach consensus, plus a migration period of 6 months to 2 years. The time window is shrinking.

There’s also a deeper philosophical dilemma: should we destroy those Bitcoins that haven’t migrated before the deadline? If 20-30% of the supply is simultaneously unlocked and cracked, Bitcoin’s narrative as a “hard currency” would be over. But what does destroying tokens mean? It implies that Bitcoin can be confiscated. Once the network can destroy assets from certain addresses to save itself, governments and authorities have a precedent—they could similarly destroy any addresses they deem inappropriate. This would undermine the very foundation of individual sovereignty.

In reality, Bitcoin is the world’s largest “honeypot.” It’s the only financial network where value can be directly stolen and cashed out 24/7. The US dollar doesn’t work this way—stolen funds are frozen, and institutions compensate. But Bitcoin relies purely on code trust, with no such safeguards. If someone gains the ability to crack public wallets with quantum computing, Bitcoin wallets will become prime targets because they are the easiest to cash out. The logic of “first come, first served” means the first cracker takes everything, and later ones get nothing.

So the real question isn’t whether the threat exists—cryptography literature has long confirmed that—it’s whether the network can coordinate all participants to complete the migration before quantum computing truly matures. It’s a race against time, and the window is closing.