Quantum Computing Threatens Bitcoin’s Foundation—But Political Battles Pose Greater Risk Than Technology

Quantum computers could shatter Bitcoin's cryptographic backbone within years—yet analysts warn the real fracture might come from political infighting long before the tech arrives.

The Encryption Countdown

Current quantum systems already test Bitcoin's defenses. When quantum processors hit critical mass—projected within this decade—they'll crack SHA-256 encryption like glass. The 57% hashrate threshold becomes meaningless when quantum calculations rewrite the rules entirely.

Political Fault Lines

Governments worldwide eye quantum supremacy as their golden ticket to control digital assets. Regulatory battles over quantum-resistant forks could splinter Bitcoin into warring chains—each backed by different nations claiming security superiority.

Meanwhile, traditional finance executives still can't decide if blockchain is a threat or opportunity—typical Wall Street paralysis while the future burns.

The race isn't about building quantum computers anymore—it's about controlling what happens when they arrive. And politics moves slower than code.

Dormant Supply At Risk

Reports have disclosed that roughly 32.4% of all Bitcoin has not moved in the past five years, and nearly 17% has stayed still for more than a decade.

That stockpile includes addresses that expose public keys, which are the main target if quantum attacks become practical.

Some analysts estimate roughly 6–7 million BTC sit in these vulnerable formats. Those holdings are already being watched by security experts.

Bitcoin Uses Elliptic Curve Signatures

Bitcoin’s current protection relies on ECDSA and Schnorr signatures. According to researchers and standards bodies, those schemes can be broken by Shor’s algorithm if a large enough quantum computer appears.

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology has approved several quantum-resistant signature schemes, and Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360 references post-quantum options. Adoption, however, requires wide agreement across the network.

You allow the old coins to come back to market.

Since there is no chance we come to consensus to freeze them, focus on the tech side of quantum SAFE wallets, and let the market sort out the rest. https://t.co/7xOZRVYl5r

— _Checkmate(@_Checkmatey_) November 23, 2025

Today’s quantum devices have about 1,000 physical qubits. Some researchers now say a specialized machine with roughly 126,000 physical qubits could break elliptic curve signatures.

Others put the bar at around 2,300 logical qubits. These gaps matter because physical and logical qubits are not the same; heavy error correction is required to turn the former into the latter.

Estimates place a workable attack window in the late 2020s or early 2030s, though timelines vary. Some scientists say a serious threat is unlikely for at least two to four decades, arguing the machines are unreliable and not close to practical use.

Reports say some actors are already changing how they handle Bitcoin. El Salvador reportedly split its 6,284 BTC reserve across 14 addresses to lower risk.

Major firms have listed quantum concerns in filings, and stablecoin operators have raised warnings about long-inactive wallets.

i think a lot of confusion on quantum and btc is that everyone frames it as a tech problem, but what makes the problem specifically unique to btc is that the tech problem is secondary

quantum resistant bitcoin will be feasible but it doesn’t solve what you do with the old coins

— ceteris (@ceterispar1bus) November 23, 2025

James Check argues the main danger is governance. He believes there is “no chance” the community will agree to freeze or forcibly migrate coins that owners do not MOVE themselves.

That political reality, he says, could leave millions of coins exposed even if technical fixes exist. Some developers and industry figures urge faster action; others believe the switch can wait until post-quantum standards are ready.

The debate splits experts: some push for early migration plans, while others say the threat is distant and manageable. Based on reports and the numbers above, the picture is clear: the risk is real, the dates are uncertain, and the biggest obstacle may be human agreement rather than hardware.

Featured image from PostQuantum.com, chart from TradingView