Coinshares Downplays Quantum Risk to Bitcoin Network in New Report

Long-term questions around Bitcoin security continue to surface as new technologies advance. A fresh report from Coinshares looks at one of the most discussed topics in that debate: quantum computing and what it may mean for Bitcoin over time.

Good to Know

• Coinshares sees quantum computing as a future engineering issue, not a present danger
• Only a small share of Bitcoin supply sits in outputs theoretically exposed
• No urgent protocol changes are required under current assumptions

Coinshares Separates Theory From Timing

The Coinshares report, published Feb. 6, focuses on whether advances in quantum computing create real pressure on Bitcoin today or remain a distant design concern. The conclusion stays clear throughout the analysis. Quantum computing does not place Bitcoin in danger right now.

“Bitcoin’s quantum vulnerability is not an immediate crisis but a foreseeable engineering consideration, with ample time for adaptation.”

That framing places the issue firmly in the category of long-range planning rather than emergency response. Analysts stress that confusion often comes from overstating what quantum machines can realistically do in the near future.

“It is a common misconception that they break cryptography as a system, but this is not the case.”

How Bitcoin Security Fits Into the Debate

Bitcoin relies on elliptic curve signatures to authorize transactions and SHA-256 hashing to secure mining and address creation. The report explains that quantum computing introduces specific theoretical risks rather than a failure of the full security model.

Shor algorithm could eventually target elliptic curve cryptography, but only after public keys become visible on-chain. Grover algorithm, often cited in alarmist claims, simply lowers the effective strength of symmetric hashes while leaving them computationally out of reach.

Because of that, exposure stays limited. Legacy Pay-to-Public-Key outputs account for roughly 8 percent of total Bitcoin supply. Even within that group, only a small subset could create short-term liquidity effects.

No Rush to Change the Protocol

From both protocol and market perspectives, Coinshares finds no reason for immediate action. The report supports cautious upgrades over sweeping changes.

“Securing Bitcoin against quantum risks is feasible and non-disruptive.”

That view aligns with the broader Bitcoin governance approach, which favors slow, conservative changes tested over time rather than rapid shifts.

Cryptographer Adam Back shared a similar assessment in comments to Coinshares.

“Bitcoin can adopt post-quantum signatures. Schnorr signatures [a technical implementation from a previous upgrade] paved the way for more upgrades, and Bitcoin can continue evolving defensively.”

The report also warns that rushed hard forks, experimental cryptography, or attempts to invalidate coins could introduce larger problems tied to decentralization, neutrality, and property rights.

Market Impact Seen as Limited

Coinshares also evaluated worst-case market scenarios. Under extreme assumptions, analysts estimate that around 10,200 BTC held in specific legacy outputs could be compromised quickly enough to reach the market.

Even then, that volume would resemble routine large transfers or exchange flows rather than a supply shock. Other vulnerable coins remain spread across thousands of addresses, with theft timelines measured in decades, even with optimistic projections for quantum progress.

FAQ

Does quantum computing threaten Bitcoin today?

No. Coinshares finds quantum computing to be a future design issue rather than an immediate risk to Bitcoin.

Which Bitcoin coins face theoretical exposure?

Legacy Pay-to-Public-Key outputs represent about 8 percent of supply, with only a small fraction capable of short-term effects.

Could Bitcoin upgrade to address quantum risks?

Yes. Post-quantum signatures remain feasible within Bitcoin existing upgrade framework.

Would quantum theft create a supply shock?

Coinshares estimates any short-term exposure would mirror normal large transfers, not a disruptive market event.