The threat posed by quantum computers to Bitcoin has deeply divided the community since the proposal of BIP-360 in 2024. Some argue for the rapid adoption of quantum-resistant signatures, while others consider the warning premature. How can we predict the future of Bitcoin without undermining the cryptographic freedoms that make it so powerful?
The quantum threat divides Bitcoiners
Quantum computing has become a recurring topic of discussion in recent times. Since the proposal of BIP-360, or “Add Support for Post-Quantum Signatures,” in 2024, this topic has divided the Bitcoin community.
On the one hand, some players in the ecosystem are pushing for a clear roadmap to integrate quantum-resistant Bitcoin signatures as soon as possible.
On the other hand, some Bitcoiners believe that the alert is premature and prefer to let the project mature before making any final decisions.
Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole, has stated that the implementation of quantum-resistant signatures should be finalized and deployed by 2026. According to him, 20-30% of Bitcoin could be compromised by a quantum attack in the coming years.
Step 2: We need to deal with the lost coins.
20-30% of Bitcoin will be taken by a quantum hacker in the next few years. I believe we should burn all coins that do not migrate to BIP-360 by 2028. This is a complex topic, but we need to talk about it and code a solution. pic.twitter.com/MFElFLCs37
— Charles Edwards (@caprioleio) December 18, 2025
He also added that he wants to “burn” all BTC that does not migrate to BIP-360 by 2028, an extreme position that is fueling the current debate.
Other influential figures in the field will take the opposite view, explaining that the threat is not pressing and that there is no need to give in to fear and doubt. This is the case with Samson Mow, CEO of Jan3:
Quantum computing can’t even factor 21, yet people are panic selling because they think it will kill Bitcoin. 😆
— Samson Mow (@Excellion) December 17, 2025
If you are unfamiliar with the subject, it is important to understand that Bitcoin private keys are currently protected by mathematical barriers.
But the emergence of quantum computers could break this security thanks to their ability to process millions of solutions in parallel. In theory, they could find a private key from a public key in a very short time, compromising Bitcoin’s security.
“The real threat is not (yet) quantum, but silent standardization.”
Historically, developments in the Bitcoin protocol have always been guided by a dual requirement: proven empirical robustness over time and a certain degree of caution in introducing new formats.
The technical transition framework of BIP-360 breaks with this tradition. Indeed, faced with actors evoking an urgent threat, fear and apprehension are stifling community debate.
A transition to post-quantum solutions that is too rapid or poorly thought out could divert attention from current security risks and generate problems related to hasty implementation.
A gradual approach allows for careful evaluation of the integration of new solutions and planning of transition phases to avoid compromising overall security.
Indeed, as Nicolas Cantu explains:
By permanently disabling key-spend and forcing the use of explicit scripts, BIP-360 weakens the optimization and confidentiality logic introduced by Taproot.
Taproot is the most significant security update Bitcoin has seen since 2017. Introducing BIP-360 would therefore neutralize the gains in confidentiality and efficiency brought about by Taproot.
This is why, for Nicolas Cantu, it is essential to structure the debate around the desired outcomes. We must anticipate the quantum threat, but also assess its cost in terms of decentralization, auditability, and protocol continuity. In his words, we must also plan for the future of Bitcoin “without erasing, out of misguided caution, the cryptographic freedoms that make it so powerful.”
