Headline: Quantum computers vs. Bitcoin — debate turns from white papers to market watch as investors weigh price risk A renewed debate over whether quantum computers can one day break Bitcoin’s cryptography has moved from technical forums into traders’ screens, with some investors saying the risk is now material enough to affect price. Charles Edwards, founder of crypto asset manager Capriole, warned that if the network isn’t made “quantum-ready,” Bitcoin could drop below $50,000 by 2028. That kind of price projection has amplified market attention and forced more public discussion about timelines and contingency plans. Where the community stands - Jameson Lopp, Bitcoin Core developer and Casa co-founder, has pushed back on panic but warned the migration itself will be slow. Lopp told followers on X that while current quantum machines aren’t an immediate danger, moving Bitcoin’s protocol and users’ funds to post-quantum signature schemes could “easily take five to 10 years.” He echoed a common refrain among developers: prepare, but don’t overstate an imminent break. - Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, has similarly said the threat is not near-term but deserves monitoring. - On the other side, some VCs and investment firms argue the risk is close enough to be priced into markets now. Voices across the spectrum Long-time Bitcoin advocates and technologists have pushed back on alarmism while still acknowledging the need to plan. Pierre Rochard suggested quantum-resistant upgrades could be funded by non-profits or venture capital and argued that a practical attack would be prohibitively expensive without state-level backing. Samson Mow, CEO of JAN3, used a tongue-in-cheek example — “current machines can’t factor the number 21” — to underline how far existing hardware remains from breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography. Andreas M. Antonopoulos has also stressed that protocol upgrades are possible when required. Why migration is hard Experts note that changing Bitcoin’s cryptography isn’t like pushing a normal software update. Challenges include: - Bitcoin’s distributed architecture and governance model, - The wide variety of wallet software in use, - A large population of holders who don’t actively manage or rotate keys. That combination would make a coordinated, global migration to post-quantum signature schemes complex and slow. BIP 360 and enforcement debates BIP 360 — a proposal to add a quantum-resistant signature method for BTC — has been floated by proponents as a forward-looking technical fix. Edwards has urged node operators to enforce BIP 360 to accelerate adoption, but others warn that enforcement and the coordination required could be contentious and take years to implement cleanly. Markets vs. theory The conversation highlights a gap between technical feasibility and market psychology. The technical camp argues there is time to plan and execute a careful transition; the investment camp worries that confidence — and therefore price — could wobble if visible progress isn’t made. That tension is why calls for concrete action are growing louder. What people are asking for Stakeholders are urging: - Funding for research into post-quantum cryptography and resilient signature schemes, - Rigorous testing of candidate replacements, - Development of migration tools and playbooks exchanges and wallets can use to move funds securely if a threat emerges. Why this matters now The debate has moved into the open because the potential for price impact makes the issue practical and urgent for investors, not just an academic concern for cryptographers. Whether the quantum timeline proves distant or accelerates, the discussion is forcing the Bitcoin community to balance careful technical planning with the market’s need for visible mitigation. Image credit: Unsplash. Chart: TradingView. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

#BTC