Reason to trust
How Our News is Made
Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality
Ad discliamer
Morbi pretium leo et nisl aliquam mollis. Quisque arcu lorem, ultricies quis pellentesque nec, ullamcorper eu odio.
The quantum threat to Bitcoin may be far less concentrated than widely assumed — and that structural detail is quietly reshaping how developers and investors think about the risk.
A Distributed Problem, Not A Single Target
Coins attributed to Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto are spread across roughly 22,000 separate addresses, each holding 50 BTC. That means a quantum computer capable of cracking Bitcoin’s encryption would need to break thousands of individual wallets — not one massive target.
According to Alex Thorn, a researcher who attended a recent industry gathering in Las Vegas, that reality is changing how experts frame the threat. The real high-value targets, Thorn noted, are large exchanges and active institutions — entities that can migrate to post-quantum addresses on their own if needed.
The distinction between long-range and short-range quantum attacks matters here, too. Neutral atom quantum systems — a competing approach to the more widely known superconducting method — are only capable of long-range attacks.
i had many discussions about quantum & bitcoin in las vegas this week, both on and off stage, with skeptics, advocates, and many overall smart bitcoiners
some consensus i feel is emerging:
1) satoshi’s coins (P2PK) should not be touched. violating his property rights could be…
— Alex Thorn (@intangiblecoins) May 2, 2026
Google recently opened a neutral atom lab shortly before publishing a major quantum computing paper. Some observers read that move as a quiet acknowledgment that superconducting technology may have limits, though the company has not said so directly.
Property Rights And The Satoshi Question
The question of whether Bitcoin’s protocol should ever be changed to address Satoshi’s coins drew strong opinions. Based on Thorn’s account of discussions at the event, a rough consensus formed: those coins should not be touched.
if you haven’t yet, watch the great discussion between @reardencode @jamesob @cryptoquick @apruden08 at @TheBitcoinConf last week https://t.co/2F52Jwkgzo
— Alex Thorn (@intangiblecoins) May 2, 2026
Altering the protocol to move or freeze them would undermine a foundational principle — that property rights on the Bitcoin network are inviolable. Violating that principle, even with good intentions, could do lasting damage to the network’s credibility.
Still, experts acknowledged the risk from Satoshi’s coins is manageable. Proposals like the “hourglass” mechanism could be activated if a long-range quantum attack appeared imminent.
On-chain data cited by Thorn also shows Bitcoin markets have regularly absorbed over 1 million BTC in a short window — meaning even a worst-case scenario involving a 50% price drop might be survivable if property rights were preserved in the process.
The Case For Quiet Research
On the question of developing post-quantum cryptography for Bitcoin, the Las Vegas conversations pointed toward a clear middle ground. Background research — building, testing, and compressing new cryptographic signatures — was broadly seen as worthwhile, even if implementation remains years away.
The concern is not the research itself but how it gets introduced. Adding something untested to the protocol, or triggering governance gridlock while other upgrades wait, are the real dangers to avoid.
Featured image from Gemini, chart from TradingView
