Quantum computers are unlikely to pose a threat to Bitcoin anytime soon, according to developer and cryptocurrency custody firm, Jameson Lopp, co-founder of Casa.
These statements come at a time when the debate is intensifying over whether advancements in quantum computing are approaching a level that could threaten the encryption systems securing blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Experts are divided on when quantum computers might threaten Bitcoin.
In a recent post on X (formerly known as Twitter), Lub said that quantum computers will not break Bitcoin anytime soon.
"No, quantum computers will not break Bitcoin in the near future. We will continue to monitor their development..... We must hope for the best, but prepare for the worst," Lub stated.
Lub's timeline aligns with many experts who assert that quantum computers do not pose an immediate threat to the network. Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, recently stated that the short-term risks are "negligible."
"All of this is decades away, still ridiculously early, and they have huge problems in research and development in every aspect of applied physics research needed to determine whether it is possible at a useful scale. But it's okay to be 'quantum-ready' and," said Back.
Charles Hoskinson, the founder of Cardano, took a similar stance. He argued that the current quantum threats to blockchain are exaggerated and not urgent at this time. Hoskinson also noted that while blockchain can transition to quantum-resistant encryption, it would bring significant efficiency cost.
However, other experts believe the timeline is tightening. David Carvalho, CEO of the Nowris Protocol, warned that quantum computers could jeopardize Bitcoin's security within the next two to three years.
Separately, Michelle Mosca, a researcher at the University of Waterloo, predicted a one in seven chance that core encryption with public key would be broken as early as 2026.
At Metaculus, the timeline for quantum computers' ability to analyze an RSA number has also been shortened. It has dropped from 2052 to 2034.
The quantum doomsday clock project is more urgent. They expect that quantum computers will break Bitcoin's encryption by March 8, 2028.
Why quantum insurance for Bitcoin is difficult.
While experts differ on the timeline, many agree on one point. If quantum-resistant upgrades become necessary, it will take time to implement them. Lub mentioned that transitioning to post-quantum standards could take 5 to 10 years.
When asked why discussions about the risks of quantum computing focus on Bitcoin rather than traditional financial institutions like banks, Lub pointed to a fundamental difference in the speed of upgrading systems.
"Because they can upgrade their systems much faster than the Bitcoin ecosystem," he said.
Meanwhile, another market observer explained the complexity of transitioning blockchain networks to quantum-resistant encryption compared to centralized systems.
"For the banking sector and the internet, migration is relatively simple. When encryption standards change, they can roll out new algorithms through coordinated updates, phase out old keys, reissue credentials, and even forcibly migrate users," he said.
As for Bitcoin, in contrast, it lacks a central authority capable of enforcing such changes. Any shift to post-quantum signatures would require broad social consensus, extensive technical coordination, and voluntary participation from users.
The analyst pointed out that Bitcoin and lost or abandoned or inactive wallets cannot be transferred. Therefore, part of the supply will remain permanently at risk once quantum attacks become viable. Technical constraints increase the complexity of the process.
"Most post-quantum signature systems have significantly larger key sizes and signatures than ECDSA. In a system already constrained by block size limits and global frequency, this is not a trivial change. What is an additional burden manageable on a bank server or web connection becomes a scalability compatibility issue on the blockchain level," the post stated.
Thus, the very decentralization that underpins Bitcoin's security and resilience makes cryptographic adaptation slower, more complex, and harder to implement compared to centralized systems.
