michaelsaylor

Many investors see quantum computing as a serious risk to Bitcoin.
But Michael Saylor believes it could become a major bullish catalyst, not the end of BTC.
Instead of being a Bitcoin us-only issue, the quantum threat would impact banks, governments, tech giants, and global security systems — forcing the entire world to upgrade encryption standards.
🌍 Quantum Threat = Global Y2K Moment
Just like the Y2K crisis:
Everyone will be affected, not just crypto
A mass shift to quantum-resistant security will be unavoidable
Users will be forced to update systems to stay operational
Bitcoin would follow the same process, requiring users to move coins from old addresses to quantum-secure ones.
🔥 The Bullish Shock: “The Great Burn”
Here’s why Saylor sees this as bullish 👇
Moving BTC requires access to private keys
Millions of BTC are lost forever
Those coins cannot be migrated
When old vulnerable addresses are disabled, BTC stuck there becomes permanently removed from circulation.
🔥 This could become the largest effective supply reduction in Bitcoin’s history, even bigger than a halving.
💡 Less supply + same demand = new price dynamics
What’s your take?
Will the quantum upgrade be Bitcoin’s biggest bullish event, or will fear dominate the market?
#BTC #Bitcoin #MichaelSaylor #Crypto #BinancSquare

Investors fear quantum computers, but Michael Saylor sees them as an unprecedented bullish trigger for Bitcoin. How can a threat to the entire digital world become the most powerful halving-like event in history?
MicroStrategy founder Michael Saylor flips the traditional "quantum threat" narrative on its head. Instead of an apocalyptic scenario for Bitcoin, he sees a unique catalyst for its price growth. His argument is built not on denying the risks, but on their global nature and the inevitable market response.
The Quantum Threat as a Global Y2K
Saylor compares the future quantum vulnerability to the "Year 2000 problem" (Y2K). It won't be an isolated Bitcoin issue, but a systemic crisis for the entire digital infrastructure:
Will Affect Everyone: Every bank, government, corporation (Apple, Microsoft), and defense contractor will face an existential threat.
A Unified Response: The world will be forced to massively transition to quantum-resistant encryption standards. Debates will take a backseat to the necessity of survival.
Forced Upgrade: Just like with Y2K, users worldwide will have to update their software. "Your bank will say: 'Install the new app, or we'll freeze your accounts,'" Saylor explains.
The Bitcoin network will undergo a similar process. All holders will be required to move their coins from old, vulnerable addresses to new, quantum-secured ones.
The Key Bullish Trigger: "The Great Burn"
This is where Saylor's logic becomes truly compelling for an investor. The mass migration to new addresses will lead to a colossal reduction in the real supply of BTC.
To protect their coins, an owner must sign a transaction with their old private key.
What will happen to "lost" coins? Keys are lost, owners have died, hard drives destroyed — these coins will not be able to migrate.
When the network finally deactivates the old vulnerable addresses (effectively "freezing" them), all coins in them will be permanently removed from circulation.
This will become the largest single burning event of bitcoins in history, vastly exceeding the effect of a halving. Demand for the upgraded, secure network will meet a radically reduced supply.
Question for Discussion
Saylor views the crisis as an opportunity, reframing the threat as a growth catalyst. But are we ready to trust this logic?
What do you think: Will the inevitable quantum transition for Bitcoin become the most powerful bullish event in its history, or will the associated risks and FUD outweigh it? Share your thoughts in the comments!
#MichaelSaylor #MicroStrategy #BTC $BTC  

While Satoshi Nakamoto’s 2008 white paper famously introduced Bitcoin as a “peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” the asset’s most prominent corporate evangelist, Michael Saylor, is pitching a radically different vision.
​Saylor, the Executive Chairman of MicroStrategy, has spent the last five years transforming his software firm into what many now call a “Bitcoin central bank.” During a recent keynote at Bitcoin MENA in Abu Dhabi, Saylor doubled down on a thesis that prioritizes Bitcoin’s role as an institutional reserve asset over its utility as a medium of exchange.
​The "Standard Oil" of Crypto
​Economist Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard and a close associate of Saylor, joined Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction to parse this distinction. According to Ammous, Saylor doesn't view Bitcoin through the traditional lens of "money."

​"He sees Bitcoin more as an asset—specifically, like crude oil," Ammous explained. "Just as Standard Oil refined crude into kerosene and gasoline for the masses, Saylor sees MicroStrategy’s role as 'refining' raw Bitcoin into sophisticated financial instruments."
​To date, MicroStrategy has used aggressive corporate maneuvers to do just that. By issuing convertible senior notes and various classes of perpetual preferred stock (such as STRK and STRC), Saylor has created a "leveraged play" on Bitcoin. As of December 15, the company’s "refinery" holds a staggering 671,268 BTC.
​The Counter-Argument: Bitcoin is Still Money
​Despite Saylor’s focus on institutional "financialization," Ammous maintains that Bitcoin’s primary identity remains monetary. While he acknowledges the logic of Saylor’s "digital oil" metaphor, Ammous views the distinction as largely academic.
​“In the long run, people are going to hold Bitcoin directly,” Ammous argued. He suggests that as long as fiat currencies continue to devalue through annual supply increases of 7% to 15%, the world will remain addicted to debt-based "fiat games."
​However, Ammous believes these financial products—including Saylor’s—all lead to the same destination. Whether Bitcoin is used as "pristine capital" to back affordable debt or held as a direct cash balance, the end result is mass accumulation.
​"One way or the other, it means more people buying Bitcoin," Ammous noted. "In my mind, that inevitably means Bitcoin becomes the money itself."
​From Theory to the Streets
​The debate takes on a practical dimension as Ammous moves into a new advisory role with Africa Bitcoin Corporation (ABC). While Saylor builds institutional "refineries" in the U.S., ABC President Stafford Masie says Ammous is focusing on the opposite end of the spectrum: the circular Bitcoin economies and retail adoption currently flourishing across South Africa.
​Whether Bitcoin’s future is as a refined institutional bond or a retail payment tool, the race to hoard the world’s scarcest digital commodity is only accelerating.#bitcoin #BTC #Binance #MichaelSaylor #CryptoNewss

Investors fear quantum computers, but Michael Saylor sees them as an unprecedented bullish trigger for Bitcoin. How can a threat to the entire digital world become the most powerful halving-like event in history?
MicroStrategy founder Michael Saylor flips the traditional "quantum threat" narrative on its head. Instead of an apocalyptic scenario for Bitcoin, he sees a unique catalyst for its price growth. His argument is built not on denying the risks, but on their global nature and the inevitable market response.
The Quantum Threat as a Global Y2K
Saylor compares the future quantum vulnerability to the "Year 2000 problem" (Y2K). It won't be an isolated Bitcoin issue, but a systemic crisis for the entire digital infrastructure:
Will Affect Everyone: Every bank, government, corporation (Apple, Microsoft), and defense contractor will face an existential threat.A Unified Response: The world will be forced to massively transition to quantum-resistant encryption standards. Debates will take a backseat to the necessity of survival.Forced Upgrade: Just like with Y2K, users worldwide will have to update their software. "Your bank will say: 'Install the new app, or we'll freeze your accounts,'" Saylor explains.
The Bitcoin network will undergo a similar process. All holders will be required to move their coins from old, vulnerable addresses to new, quantum-secured ones.
The Key Bullish Trigger: "The Great Burn"
This is where Saylor's logic becomes truly compelling for an investor. The mass migration to new addresses will lead to a colossal reduction in the real supply of BTC.
To protect their coins, an owner must sign a transaction with their old private key.What will happen to "lost" coins? Keys are lost, owners have died, hard drives destroyed — these coins will not be able to migrate.When the network finally deactivates the old vulnerable addresses (effectively "freezing" them), all coins in them will be permanently removed from circulation.
This will become the largest single burning event of bitcoins in history, vastly exceeding the effect of a halving. Demand for the upgraded, secure network will meet a radically reduced supply.
Question for Discussion
Saylor views the crisis as an opportunity, reframing the threat as a growth catalyst. But are we ready to trust this logic?
What do you think: Will the inevitable quantum transition for Bitcoin become the most powerful bullish event in its history, or will the associated risks and FUD outweigh it? Share your thoughts in the comments!
#MichaelSaylor #MicroStrategy #BTC $BTC  

While many investors see quantum computing as a serious threat, Michael Saylor argues it could become one of the most bullish events Bitcoin has ever experienced. Rather than signaling Bitcoin’s collapse, he believes quantum risk could act like a massive, one-time supply shock—stronger than any halving.
The MicroStrategy founder doesn’t dismiss the danger. Instead, he emphasizes that the threat isn’t unique to Bitcoin—it applies to the entire digital world. And that reality, he says, changes everything.
Quantum Risk as a Global “Y2K Moment”
Saylor likens quantum vulnerability to the Year 2000 (Y2K) issue. It wouldn’t be a niche crypto problem, but a crisis affecting all modern systems:
Everyone Is Impacted: Banks, governments, tech giants like Apple and Microsoft, and even defense institutions would be at risk.
Coordinated Global Action: Faced with existential danger, the world would be forced to adopt quantum-resistant cryptography. Debate would give way to urgency.
Mandatory Upgrades: Just as with Y2K, users would be required to update their software. As Saylor puts it, banks might say, “Update the app, or your account is frozen.”
Bitcoin, he argues, would follow a similar path. Holders would need to transfer their BTC from legacy addresses to new ones protected by quantum-safe cryptography.
The Bullish Core: A Massive Supply Shock
This is where Saylor believes the real upside lies. A forced network migration would dramatically reduce Bitcoin’s effective supply.
To move coins, owners must sign transactions using their existing private keys.
Many coins are lost forever—keys misplaced, owners deceased, hardware destroyed.
Those BTC would be unable to migrate to the new system.
Once the network disables the old, vulnerable addresses, all remaining coins in them would be permanently locked out of circulation. According to Saylor, this would amount to the largest BTC “burn” ever—far greater in impact than a halving. With demand intact and supply sharply reduced, the price dynamics could shift dramatically.
Question for Discussion
Saylor reframes a technological crisis as a historic opportunity. But does the logic hold?
Do you think Bitcoin’s eventual transition to quantum-resistant security could become its strongest bullish catalyst—or will uncertainty, fear, and technical risk dominate the narrative?
Share your thoughts.
#MichaelSaylor #MicroStrategy #Bitcoin #BTC

On December 16, Michael Saylor shared a characteristically optimistic view on Bitcoin’s future in the age of quantum computing, arguing that the technology will ultimately make Bitcoin stronger rather than destroy it. His statement captures what many consider the best-case scenario for Bitcoin in a post-quantum world:
> “Bitcoin’s quantum leap: Quantum computing will not break Bitcoin — it will harden it. The network will upgrade, active coins will move, lost coins will be frozen. Security increases. Supply decreases. Bitcoin becomes stronger.”
While this vision is directionally appealing, a closer look at the technical, governance, and timing realities reveals a far more complex picture—one where outcomes depend less on cryptography alone and more on coordination, incentives, and execution under pressure.
Quantum Computers Won’t Break Bitcoin — If Migration Happens in Time
At a high level, Saylor’s argument is conceptually correct. Bitcoin’s main vulnerability to quantum computing does not lie in Proof-of-Work, but in its digital signature schemes.
Bitcoin currently relies on ECDSA and Schnorr signatures over the secp256k1 curve. A sufficiently powerful, fault-tolerant quantum computer—equipped with roughly 2,000–4,000 logical qubits—could use Shor’s algorithm to derive private keys from exposed public keys.
Crucially, today’s quantum hardware is still far from this threshold, suggesting that a cryptographically meaningful quantum threat is likely at least a decade away.
On the defensive side, the tools already exist. The U.S. NIST has finalized post-quantum digital signature standards such as ML-DSA (Dilithium) and SLH-DSA (SPHINCS+), with Falcon (FN-DSA) nearing completion. These schemes are quantum-resistant and, in principle, can be integrated into Bitcoin via new output types or hybrid signatures. Recent benchmarks even show that SPHINCS+ could operate in a Bitcoin-like environment.
However, this upgrade comes with real trade-offs. Academic research indicates that moving to post-quantum signatures could reduce effective block capacity by up to 50%, due to much larger signature sizes and heavier verification costs. This would increase node resource requirements and potentially push transaction fees higher.
The most difficult challenge, though, is not technical—it’s governance. Bitcoin has no central authority to mandate upgrades. A post-quantum soft fork would require overwhelming consensus among developers, miners, exchanges, custodians, and large holders—and it must be deployed before quantum computers reach a critical capability. The primary risk is coordination failure and timing, not broken math.
“Lost Coins” Are Not Automatically Frozen
Saylor’s claim that active coins will move while lost coins are frozen is an oversimplification. In reality, quantum risk depends entirely on address type and whether the public key has already been exposed.
Early P2PK outputs embed public keys directly on-chain and are always exposed.
P2PKH and P2WPKH addresses hide the public key behind a hash until the coin is spent; once spent, the public key becomes visible and vulnerable.
Taproot (P2TR) outputs embed the public key from the start, meaning the UTXO is exposed even if it has never moved.
Independent analyses suggest that around 25% of Bitcoin’s total supply currently sits in outputs where the public key is already exposed. This includes large amounts of early-era coins, custodial holdings, and modern Taproot UTXOs.
Notably, Satoshi-era P2PK outputs alone are estimated at roughly 1.7 million BTC, with additional hundreds of thousands of BTC potentially exposed through Taproot.
This means a portion of so-called “lost coins” would not be frozen at all. Instead, they may be ownerless yet stealable, becoming lucrative targets for the first actor with a sufficiently powerful quantum computer.
By contrast, coins whose public keys have never been revealed remain protected by hashing. Grover’s algorithm only provides a quadratic speedup against hashes, a threat that can be mitigated by parameter adjustments.
Supply Does Not Automatically Shrink
The idea that higher security leads to lower supply blurs the line between technical mechanisms and economic speculation.
Technically, post-quantum signatures are viable, and Bitcoin-specific optimizations—such as hybrid outputs or signature aggregation—are actively being researched to limit blockchain bloat.
Economically, however, supply dynamics are anything but automatic. Several scenarios are possible:
1. Vulnerable coins that fail to upgrade become effectively unspendable or socially discouraged.
2. Quantum attackers successfully steal exposed coins, distorting supply and trust.
3. Quantum fear emerges early, triggering sell-offs, governance disputes, or even contentious chain splits.
None of these outcomes guarantees a clean, bullish “supply reduction.” Instead, they could usher in a period of repricing, chaos, and political conflict, with attacks concentrated on legacy wallets.
Conclusion: A Coordination Bet, Not a Cryptography Problem
Physics and standardization roadmaps suggest that quantum computers will not break Bitcoin overnight. The window for a post-quantum transition likely spans a decade or more. But the transition itself is expensive, politically sensitive, and complicated by the fact that a significant portion of Bitcoin’s supply is already exposed.
Saylor is right that Bitcoin can emerge stronger. The network can upgrade its cryptography, harden its defenses, and adapt. But the claim that lost coins will freeze and supply will inevitably shrink only holds if the transition is orderly, widely adopted, and executed before adversaries exploit the lag.
In the end, Bitcoin’s quantum future depends less on qubits and more on coordination. Saylor’s confidence is, ultimately, a bet on the network’s ability to execute a complex, costly, and contentious upgrade before physics catches up.
👉 Follow for deep dives on Bitcoin security, quantum risk, and long-term crypto fundamentals.
#Bitcoin #MichaelSaylor