According to @BitMEXResearch, Bitcoin developer Pieter Wuille joined the discussion to explain which coins could be at risk from quantum computing, highlighting that risk assessment is an active topic in the community (source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Dec 23, 2025). @BitMEXResearch reported that user sgravina expressed skepticism about quantum computing capabilities, noting the oft-cited claim that the most impressive factorization achieved was 5 x 3 = 15, a talking point the thread says persists (source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Dec 23, 2025). For traders, the thread indicates ongoing debate around quantum-security risk narratives tied to BTC, which market participants track as potential headline-driven sentiment catalysts (source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Dec 23, 2025).

According to @BitMEXResearch, a participant identified as “neotrino” expressed concern about Bitcoin’s current ECDSA and urged a move to post-quantum algorithms, warning the US government could break ECDSA within five years. Source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Dec 23, 2025, status 2003589479853097229. For traders, this post flags a perceived five-year threat window to ECDSA used in Bitcoin, making developer discussions on post-quantum migration a potential headline catalyst to monitor. Source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Dec 23, 2025, status 2003589479853097229.

According to BitMEX Research, the Bitcoin community was already debating quantum-computing risks in January 2011 on Bitcointalk, highlighting long-standing awareness of potential cryptographic threats to BTC security, Source: BitMEX Research post on X dated Dec 23, 2025, Bitcointalk forum discussion. The core technical issue is that Bitcoin’s ECDSA signatures would be vulnerable to sufficiently powerful quantum computers via Shor’s algorithm, prompting global efforts to adopt post-quantum cryptography, Source: NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography project. Traders evaluating tail risk can track two concrete signals grounded in this context, the maturation of NIST-standardized post-quantum signature schemes and any Bitcoin developer discussions about quantum-resistant signature options, as proxies for mitigation progress rather than immediate protocol change, Source: NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography project, Bitcointalk forum discussion.

According to @BitMEXResearch, in December 2011 D-Wave announced that a 128-bit quantum computer would be available soon, which again sparked concern among Bitcoiners, highlighting headline-driven sentiment risk for BTC security that traders monitor. Source: @BitMEXResearch on X, Dec 23, 2025.

According to @BitMEXResearch, in May 2011 D-Wave announced it sold the world’s first quantum computer to Lockheed Martin, triggering visible concern in the Bitcoin community and leading to multiple discussion threads, highlighting sensitivity to quantum-computing headlines as a BTC security narrative catalyst, source: @BitMEXResearch.

According to BitMEX Research, discussion of Bitcoin’s quantum computing risk and potential mitigations is longstanding and references the 2008 volume Post-Quantum Cryptography by Daniel J. Bernstein and others, indicating this is not a new concern for the ecosystem (source: BitMEX Research, Dec 23, 2025; source: Post-Quantum Cryptography, 2008). The referenced literature documents that Shor's algorithm breaks discrete-log-based cryptography including elliptic-curve systems used for Bitcoin transaction signatures, while Grover's algorithm provides only a quadratic speedup against hash functions such as SHA-256, implying different threat levels and timelines for signatures versus hashing (source: Post-Quantum Cryptography, 2008). BitMEX Research’s thread does not announce any new vulnerability, exploit, or immediate protocol change, framing the topic as research context rather than a current incident or catalyst (source: BitMEX Research, Dec 23, 2025). For traders, this thread signals no direct near-term market catalyst from quantum risk alone, while underscoring the relevance of tracking credible post-quantum signature research that could inform future Bitcoin upgrade discussions if required (source: BitMEX Research, Dec 23, 2025; source: Post-Quantum Cryptography, 2008).

According to @caprioleio, there is a 34% chance quantum computing breaks Bitcoin within the next three years, implying BTC’s present value should be discounted by roughly 34% today, source: @caprioleio, X, Dec 17, 2025. He states that a network fix would take about 2–3 years to deploy, so the implied quantum-risk discount rate is increasing every day, source: @caprioleio, X, Dec 17, 2025. For trading, his framework suggests pricing a higher risk premium into BTC spot and long-dated exposure and reassessing term structure and downside tail risk as markets incorporate quantum computing risk to Bitcoin, source: @caprioleio, X, Dec 17, 2025.

According to @Andre_Dragosch, Bitcoin’s network security is not the near-term weak point; the main quantum risk is to legacy wallets with exposed public keys that could be derived via Shor’s algorithm once sufficiently powerful hardware exists, not via brute-force of private keys, which is infeasible today, source: @Andre_Dragosch on X. For context, Google’s Willow system has 105 physical qubits, while breaking Bitcoin’s ECC would likely require roughly 5,000–10,000 logical qubits, implying hundreds of thousands to millions of physical qubits, placing the threat multiple engineering breakthroughs away, source: @Andre_Dragosch on X. Bitcoin’s network currently runs at about 1 zettahash per second, vastly beyond the reach of current quantum machines and expected capabilities in the foreseeable future, reinforcing low network-level risk for traders, source: @Andre_Dragosch on X. The concentrated exposure lies in older addresses: estimates suggest 4.5M+ BTC sit in dormant wallets that may never upgrade to quantum-resistant signatures, and a forced migration or sudden movement of these coins could create material sell pressure, source: @Andre_Dragosch on X. Timeline opinions vary widely, with ranges cited as 2029, around a 20% chance by 2030, and 2045–2065, highlighting uncertainty but also time for Bitcoin to implement quantum-safe BIPs and coordinate upgrades, source: @Andre_Dragosch on X citing @caprioleio, @VitalikButerin, and @adam3us. For trading strategy, the takeaway is low near-term quantum risk to BTC’s consensus while monitoring on-chain activity of Satoshi-era and other legacy wallets for unusual spending that could signal supply overhang, plus tracking progress on quantum-resistant BIPs as a mitigating catalyst, source: @Andre_Dragosch on X. Traditional finance may face quantum risk earlier due to widespread RSA/ECC usage in authentication and interbank communications, which, if compromised, could shift relative risk perceptions and support BTC’s digital bearer asset narrative, source: @Andre_Dragosch on X.

According to @cas_abbe, Vitalik warned about quantum computing threats to crypto and Ray Dalio said quantum computing could be devastating for crypto assets, highlighting security risk as a trading factor, source: @cas_abbe on X, Nov 27, 2025. The post highlights Algorand Foundation's introduction of quantum-secure accounts and references a quantum-secure ledger, source: @cas_abbe on X, Nov 27, 2025. Algorand Foundation states that Algorand introduced quantum-secure accounts and that its ledger is quantum-secure, source: Algorand Foundation on X, status 1993754158726566306. For traders, the immediate verifiable catalyst is the Algorand Foundation announcement positioning ALGO within the post-quantum security theme discussed on X, source: Algorand Foundation on X, status 1993754158726566306.

According to @CoinMarketCap, VanEck CEO Jan van Eck told CNBC that quantum computing poses a potential risk to Bitcoin’s encryption. Source: CoinMarketCap on X citing CNBC, Nov 24, 2025. According to @CoinMarketCap, he also said BTC should “for sure” still be part of investor portfolios for now. Source: CoinMarketCap on X citing CNBC, Nov 24, 2025. For trading, this frames BTC as a maintain-allocation asset while monitoring quantum security developments. Source: CoinMarketCap on X citing CNBC, Nov 24, 2025.

According to @caprioleio, BTC’s terminal value should be discounted today by the same probability assigned to a quantum computing “Q-Day” within the next three years (e.g., a 10% Q-Day risk implies a 10% discount), because he estimates Bitcoin would require roughly 1 year to reach upgrade consensus and 1 year to fully deploy a solution, totaling 2-3 years (source: @caprioleio, Nov 18, 2025). He further states that until consensus on a Bitcoin upgrade is reached, BTC’s terminal value declines daily as the quantum threat rises (source: @caprioleio, Nov 18, 2025).

According to @caprioleio, if quantum computing risks are not solved by 2026, traders should expect large, frequent market moves on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis, signaling persistent volatility risk for crypto markets; source: Charles Edwards on X, Nov 14, 2025, https://twitter.com/caprioleio/status/1989244014487564733. No specific assets or magnitudes were cited, indicating a broad market volatility warning rather than a coin-specific call; source: Charles Edwards on X, Nov 14, 2025, https://twitter.com/caprioleio/status/1989244014487564733.

According to @caprioleio, Bitcoin needs a concrete target timeline for implementing quantum-safe protections even if he disagrees with the calculation method behind the proposed target, because a clear milestone provides critical execution focus for the network and stakeholders, source: @caprioleio on X, Nov 6, 2025, https://x.com/caprioleio/status/1985936887941648513. He warns that if Bitcoin has not solved its quantum vulnerability by the referenced target, the market could face severe downside, implying material tail risk to BTC price and long-duration holdings, source: @caprioleio on X, Nov 6, 2025, https://x.com/caprioleio/status/1985936887941648513. The post indicates a debated methodology behind the target but underscores the need for a visual milestone, framing quantum readiness as a key risk factor traders should monitor in BTC’s long-term thesis, source: @caprioleio on X, Nov 6, 2025, https://x.com/caprioleio/status/1985936887941648513.

According to the source, IBM has publicly demonstrated the 127-qubit Eagle in 2021 and the 433-qubit Osprey in 2022, and unveiled the 1,121-qubit Condor in 2023, as documented in the IBM Research quantum roadmap and announcements. NIST states that cryptographically relevant, fault-tolerant quantum computers do not yet exist and has initiated a multi-year migration to post-quantum standards, per NIST’s Post-Quantum Cryptography standardization updates in 2022 and 2024. For Bitcoin’s secp256k1 ECDSA, resource estimates indicate very large error-corrected qubit counts and long runtimes are required for Shor-based attacks, far beyond today’s devices, per Roetteler et al. 2017 and NIST assessments. In practice, only outputs whose public keys are revealed at spend are directly exposed before any upgrade, while P2PKH, P2WPKH, and Taproot outputs reveal the pubkey only on spending, limiting immediate on-chain attack surface, per the Bitcoin.org Developer Guide.

According to @caprioleio, current quantum computing fear mirrors the BTC "going to zero" headlines from five years ago, indicating a recurring FUD cycle rather than new fundamentals. Source: @caprioleio on X, Oct 14, 2025. He adds that these unresearched posts suggest the market is still early, with sentiment-heavy narratives dominating attention. Source: @caprioleio on X, Oct 14, 2025. Based on @caprioleio’s view, traders can treat quantum FUD as headline-driven sentiment risk rather than a thesis-changing catalyst, avoiding reactive de-risking solely on such posts. Source: @caprioleio on X, Oct 14, 2025.