Quantum Threat Countdown: The Internal and External Challenges Facing Bitcoin and Saylor's Warning

In the heated debate over whether and how the Bitcoin network should upgrade to defend against quantum computing, Strategy co-founder Michael Saylor issued a warning: “Protocol changes driven by ambitious speculators” pose the greatest current risk to the network. His remarks come at a time when institutions are beginning to take the quantum threat seriously. Venture capital firm Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter has repeatedly warned that Bitcoin protocols should be upgraded to post-quantum secure standards as soon as possible.

Quantum Risks Enter the Mainstream

Once considered a “theoretical black swan,” quantum threats have now become a reality that the crypto ecosystem must face. From government agencies to financial institutions, major global players have begun to develop quantum defense strategies.

Nic Carter warned that elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), which Bitcoin relies on, can theoretically be broken by Shor’s algorithm, and that quantum computing is only a “technical challenge” away from achieving this. This statement has sparked intense reactions within the community.

According to the latest analysis, approximately 6.7 million BTC (worth over $600 billion) face varying degrees of quantum attack risk. The most concerning are about 1.7 million BTC in P2PK addresses belonging to Satoshi Nakamoto and early miners.

Internal Governance Challenges and External Technical Threats

Michael Saylor views the “rigidity” of the Bitcoin protocol as its main defense. He believes that internal efforts to “improve” the network are more dangerous than external technical threats. This stance highlights Bitcoin’s nature as a neutral digital currency. The warning targets developers pushing for non-monetary uses of Bitcoin, such as adding non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and on-chain images. This debate has led to Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP-110), which aims to filter non-monetary data from the Bitcoin ledger.

Community divisions are becoming increasingly apparent. One side wants to maintain protocol stability, while the other advocates for expanding Bitcoin’s functionality, including support for quantum-resistant wallet addresses. These disagreements reveal that Bitcoin’s real challenge lies in its internal governance efficiency.

Potential Vulnerability of Elliptic Curve Cryptography

Elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) is the foundation of Bitcoin’s security, underpinning its ECDSA and Schnorr signature mechanisms. However, in theory, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could derive private keys from public keys.

Currently, quantum computers are not yet large enough to threaten Bitcoin’s security, with a gap of several orders of magnitude. Mathematical complexity increases exponentially with key size. But progress is accelerating.

Experts predict that a dedicated machine with about 126,000 physical qubits could be enough to crack Bitcoin wallet elliptic curve signatures. Others believe that 2,300 logical qubits would suffice to break Bitcoin encryption.

Community Divisions and Technological Conservatism

The Bitcoin community is divided into two camps regarding the timeline and urgency of the quantum threat, reaching a boiling point in the recent public clash between Adam Back and Nic Carter.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back rebutted Carter’s claims, stating that Bitcoin users and developers are quietly conducting defensive research, while Nic Carter “makes unfounded statements.” He believes that quantum attacks are unlikely to occur within the next 20 to 40 years. From a technical perspective, post-quantum signature schemes already exist, and Bitcoin could theoretically implement soft forks to adopt post-quantum (PQ) signature schemes. But the challenge lies in implementation difficulty. A16z’s report highlights two major practical dilemmas: low governance efficiency and user initiative issues.

Bitcoin’s upgrade process is extremely slow. Based on the histories of SegWit and Taproot, discussions, development, and consensus for a post-quantum migration could take up to ten years. Moreover, upgrades cannot be passive; users must actively transfer assets to new addresses.

Market Reactions and Price Dynamics

Regarding market reactions, the relationship between Bitcoin price fluctuations and discussions about quantum threats remains unclear. Bitcoin market analyst James Check states that concerns over quantum computing have not yet affected Bitcoin’s market price. He believes the recent market decline is due to long-term holders selling their Bitcoin into the market.

According to Gate data, as of January 26, 2026, Bitcoin’s price is $87,692.4, with a market cap of $1.79T. Over the past 7 days, the price has fallen 6.21%, but over the past 30 days, it has increased by 3.19%.

Notably, digital asset investment fund Capriole founder Charles Edwards issued a more aggressive warning: if Bitcoin is not prepared for quantum resistance by 2028, its price could be pressured and even fall below $50,000.

Based on Gate data analysis, the average Bitcoin price in 2026 could be around $89,734.6, fluctuating between a low of $52,943.41 and a high of $126,525.78.

The Dilemma of Innovation versus Rigidity

Bitcoin faces a dilemma between innovation and rigidity. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin warns that quantum computers could crack Ethereum’s elliptic curve encryption by 2028, urging an upgrade within four years. Unlike the wavering Bitcoin community, other blockchains have already begun defenses against quantum risks. Ethereum, Aptos, Solana, and Cardano all have specific post-quantum roadmaps.

Bitcoin core developer Jameson Lopp warns that upgrading the Bitcoin protocol to post-quantum standards, even if “smoothly implemented,” would “take 5 to 10 years.” His timeline does not refer to technical development time but to the collective action problem faced by Bitcoin as a decentralized protocol. The reality of quantum risk is no longer debatable; the key issue is whether the Bitcoin community and the crypto ecosystem can prepare before a black swan event occurs. The race of time and governance has just begun.

Millions of “sleeping coins” will lose protection forever. These early Bitcoins that cannot follow network upgrades have become, in effect, “time capsules” in the quantum era, their fate no longer determined by owners but by the speed of quantum technological progress and the community’s coordination. When assets worth over $600 billion are at risk, Bitcoin’s decentralized governance faces an unprecedented test. Bitcoin expert Willy Woo points out that the risk depends on how Bitcoin is stored and held. Newer Bitcoin addresses do not expose the full public key on-chain, making them less vulnerable to quantum attacks. A seasoned developer laments, “Our greatest threat is not quantum computers but ourselves. If we cannot reach consensus before the threat becomes reality, Bitcoin may be constrained by its own design philosophy.”