Benchmark: Quantum computing threatens only 200K BTC, and most assets are still safe

! [Bitcoin quantum computing risks] (https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-87a9b3933a-6e9ececdce-8b7abd-e2c905.webp)

Benchmark analysts dismiss the quantum panic, arguing that attacks take decades rather than years. Only 100-200 public keys are at risk for exposing addresses. Timeline Controversy: Chamath predicts 2-5 years, Adam Back thinks 20-40 years. Ethereum has a $100K bonus, and Coinbase has set up a committee. Jefferies’ strategist portfolio excludes BTC this month.

Bitcoin quantum computing risk: only 200 exposed coins

Benchmark analyst Mark Palmer wrote in a research note released on Thursday that quantum computing poses a real theoretical vulnerability to Bitcoin’s cryptography, but he emphasized that actual attacks may “take decades, not years,” giving the network ample time to adapt before responding to threats. This timing judgment is crucial for assessing the severity of the risk, as it determines whether the Bitcoin community needs to take immediate action.

Bitcoin relies on cryptography to secure wallets and authorize transactions. Specifically, Bitcoin uses the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA), based on a mathematical puzzle: inferring private keys from public keys is nearly impossible (it takes billions of years) on traditional computers. However, quantum computers use the principles of quantum superposition and entanglement to theoretically break this encryption within hours using the Shor algorithm.

Palmer emphasized that only Bitcoins in those addresses that have already leaked public keys are at risk, not all of them. Bitcoin addresses are divided into two categories: unused addresses (only exposed Bitcoin addresses, no public key) and used addresses (once sent transactions and the public key is recorded on the blockchain). Quantum computers can only attack the latter because they need the public key as input to push back the private key.

According to the report, some researchers estimate that approximately 100 to 200 bitcoins exist in addresses where public keys have been exposed, such as reused addresses or early “Satoshi era” wallets. This estimate is more conservative than some other researchers, who give a figure close to 700. This higher estimate is closer to the comments made by Vetle Lunde, head of research at K33. He said last month that while theoretically about 680K Bitcoins could be vulnerable in future quantum attack scenarios, the timeline remains uncertain and the issue requires coordination from developers rather than panic selling.

Quantum risk differences for Bitcoin addresses

Unused address (public key not exposed): About 19 million BTC, quantum computers cannot attack, completely safe

Used address (public key exposed): 100-200 (conservative estimate) or 680 (aggressive estimate), with theoretical risk

Even with the most aggressive estimates, 680K represents only 32% of the total supply. This means that at least 68% of Bitcoin is immune to quantum threats. What’s more, these “safe” Bitcoins can be kept secure forever with a simple operation: holders only need to transfer their tokens to a new address (generating a new unused address), eliminating quantum risk.

2 years vs 20 years: A heated dispute over the timeline

Opinions on the timeline are also very different. In a November 2025 article, venture capitalist and early Bitcoin investor Chamath Palihapitiya said he believes Bitcoin may face a quantum threat in the next 2 to 5 years, a timeline that will significantly shorten the window for defensive upgrades. Palihapitiya’s judgment is based on Google’s Willow quantum chip and IBM’s quantum roadmap, which tech giants claim will achieve “quantum advantage” (i.e., quantum computers outperform traditional supercomputers on specific tasks) by 2030.

Adam Back, a longtime contributor to Bitcoin and a cryptographer, questioned this view, stating that the risk is more likely to “arise in 20 to 40 years, and even then it may not happen.” Back’s conservative estimates are based on observations of the actual development progress of quantum computers: while the laboratory has demonstrated the feasibility of the principle, there are still significant technical obstacles to building a “fault-tolerant quantum computer” capable of breaking Bitcoin encryption.

The scale of quantum computers required to crack Bitcoin far exceeds the current technical level. It is estimated that it would take about 1,000 physical qubits to crack ECDSA in a reasonable amount of time, compared to the current state-of-the-art quantum computers, such as IBM’s Condor, with only 1,121 qubits. More importantly, the current error rate of qubits is extremely high, requiring “quantum error correction” technology to achieve fault tolerance, which further increases the number of physical qubits required.

Benchmark also refuted the notion that Bitcoin is too rigid to adapt, arguing that the Bitcoin network has previously evolved in response to significant risks, including through upgrades like Taproot. It anticipates that any shift in the direction of quantum resistance will follow a similar gradual path rather than a sudden change in protocol. Although Bitcoin’s upgrade mechanism is slow and requires broad consensus, this prudence is precisely the guarantee of its security.

The industry has initiated quantum defense deployments

The release of this report comes amid increasing industry attention to quantum technology preparations. Last week, the Ethereum Foundation established a dedicated post-quantum security team and announced a $100K research grant to fund academics and developers developing quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms. This bonus aims to accelerate the implementation of “Post-Quantum Cryptography” in Ethereum, ensuring that upgrades are completed before quantum threats become realized.

Meanwhile, Coinbase recently established a Quantum Advisory Committee to assess risks and mitigation strategies across blockchains. The committee includes cryptography experts, quantum physicists, and blockchain developers who will regularly publish risk assessment reports and provide upgrade recommendations for Coinbase-supported blockchains. This proactive response at the institutional level shows that quantum threats have moved from “academic discussion” to “industry agenda”.

Some investors have begun to reassess risk and adjust their model portfolios more carefully. Earlier this month, Jefferies strategist Christopher Wood removed Bitcoin from his model portfolio, citing the “existential” risk that quantum computing poses to its long-term store of value theory. This is the first time that a mainstream investment bank has publicly reduced its holdings of Bitcoin due to quantum risks, which has attracted market attention.

However, Wood’s decision was also met with criticism. Many analysts believe this is an overreaction, as even if the quantum threat does come true within 5 years (the most aggressive prediction), the Bitcoin community has plenty of time to deploy defenses. More importantly, the traditional financial system also relies on the same encryption technology (such as RSA), and if Bitcoin is breached by a quantum computer, the banking system, government communications, and military networks will all face the same risks. This “all die together” situation has led governments and technology companies to actively invest in post-quantum cryptography research.

In fact, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released the first post-quantum encryption standards in 2024, including algorithms such as CRYSTALS-Kyber and CRYSTALS-Dilithium. These standards provide ready-made technical solutions for upgrading blockchains such as Bitcoin. The Bitcoin developer community is already discussing how to integrate these algorithms, possibly through a soft fork.

From a risk management perspective, Benchmark’s “long-term and controllable” judgment is more rational. Panic selling or aggressive protocol changes can cause unnecessary losses, and the best response strategy is to carefully monitor quantum technology progress, develop defense plans in advance, and escalate smoothly when threats approach.