Quantum Computing vs Bitcoin: CoinShares Research Maps Vulnerable Addresses and a Long Timeline

The intersection between quantum computing and Bitcoin has long been framed as an existential threat, an unavoidable moment when cryptography fails and digital scarcity collapses. 

CoinShares’ latest research challenges that narrative with data, economic reasoning, and a sober sense of technological timelines.

Led by CoinShares Head of Research Christopher Bendiksen, the study dismantles headline-driven estimates that suggest a large portion of Bitcoin’s supply is at immediate quantum risk. 

Instead, it isolates where vulnerability actually exists, how quantum attacks would work in practice, and why the threat horizon stretches across decades rather than years.

The result is not complacency, but clarity. Bitcoin is not immune to quantum progress but neither is it standing on the edge of collapse.

Key Takeaways

• CoinShares estimates only ~10,200 BTC are economically viable targets for quantum attacks.

• The risk is concentrated in legacy P2PK addresses with exposed public keys, not modern wallets.

• Practical quantum threats are decades away, allowing for orderly post-quantum upgrades.

Trade with confidence. Bitrue is a secure and trusted crypto trading platform for buying, selling, and trading Bitcoin and altcoins.

Register Now to Claim Your Prize!

CoinShares’ Quantum Risk Framework

CoinShares approaches quantum risk from an economic, not theoretical, perspective. Rather than asking whether Bitcoin’s cryptography can be broken, the research asks whether it would be worth breaking under realistic conditions.

Many high-risk estimates, some claiming up to 25% of Bitcoin is vulnerable, conflate temporary operational issues, such as address reuse by exchanges, with irreversible cryptographic exposure. CoinShares deliberately excludes issues that can be resolved through standard wallet behavior or protocol incentives.

This methodological restraint is central to why their risk numbers are dramatically lower.

Read Also: 2.565 BTC Moved to Satoshi’s Genesis Address, Drawing Market Attention

Vulnerable Bitcoin Addresses: Separating Exposure from Incentive

Understanding P2PK Addresses

The primary focus of CoinShares’ analysis is Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK) addresses. Used predominantly in Bitcoin’s earliest days, P2PK scripts reveal the public key directly on-chain, even before coins are spent.

This matters because quantum attacks target public keys not addresses. Once a public key is visible, it becomes a theoretical candidate for cryptographic reversal.

CoinShares identified approximately 1.63 million BTC stored in P2PK addresses. On paper, that sounds alarming. In practice, it is not.

Why Only 10,200 BTC Is at Real Risk

Quantum attacks are extraordinarily resource-intensive. When cost, time, and hardware constraints are applied, CoinShares concludes that only addresses holding more than 100 BTC are economically attractive targets.

This reduces the realistic attack surface to roughly 10,230 BTC. Smaller balances would take centuries or even millennia to crack, even under optimistic assumptions about quantum advancement.

In short, vulnerability does not scale linearly. Economics sets the boundary.

Read Also: Bitcoin vs Gold: What Is the Current Condition?

Quantum Algorithms and Bitcoin’s Cryptography

Shor’s Algorithm vs secp256k1

Bitcoin relies on ECDSA signatures using the secp256k1 elliptic curve. Shor’s algorithm, in theory, could derive a private key from a known public key effectively bypassing ECDSA’s security assumptions.

However, CoinShares estimates that breaking a single Bitcoin key within 24 hours would require around 13 million physical qubits. Current quantum machines fall short by a factor of roughly 100,000 times.

This gap is not incremental. It is structural.

Grover’s Algorithm and SHA-256

Grover’s algorithm is often cited as a threat to Bitcoin’s hashing function, SHA-256. In reality, it provides a quadratic speed-up, not a complete break.

Bitcoin’s proof-of-work difficulty would adjust long before mining security became compromised. 

Crucially, Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap remains untouched, as issuance rules are enforced at the consensus layer, not through hash strength alone.

Read Also: BlackRock Moves $160M BTC: Institutional Buy Wall Loading?

Timeline Reality: Why This Is Not an Emergency

CoinShares emphasizes that quantum risk is a long-duration problem, not an imminent crisis. This distinction reshapes how mitigation should be approached.

Rather than rushed, high-risk protocol changes, Bitcoin has time to implement post-quantum signature schemes through soft forks. This allows gradual migration, preserves backward compatibility, and avoids coercive actions against coin holders.

CoinShares strongly opposes proposals to “burn” vulnerable coins, arguing such measures violate property rights and are unnecessary under realistic threat models.

Time, in this case, is a feature not a liability.

Market Reactions: FUD, Discipline, and Diverging Views

Responses to quantum narratives vary sharply.

Michael Saylor has dismissed quantum fear as an exaggerated FUD, emphasizing Bitcoin’s adaptive design and incentive-driven evolution. 

On the other side, Jefferies strategist Christopher Wood reduced Bitcoin exposure not based on CoinShares’ findings, but on broader estimates suggesting widespread vulnerability.

CoinShares directly challenges those assumptions, arguing that risk inflation stems from poor categorization rather than cryptographic reality.

The takeaway is subtle but important: quantum risk is real, but misunderstanding it can be more damaging than the technology itself.

Read Also: Bitcoin Nears 4th Straight Red Month—First Time Since 2018

Bitcoin’s Strategic Outlook in a Quantum World

Bitcoin has never been static. From SegWit to Taproot, its history is defined by cautious, incremental upgrades rather than radical overhauls.

Quantum computing fits neatly into that pattern. The threat is visible, slow-moving, and technically constrained making it uniquely manageable compared to sudden regulatory or market shocks.

CoinShares’ research does not dismiss quantum risk. It reframes it. And in doing so, it suggests that Bitcoin’s greatest strength remains unchanged: time-aligned incentives and deliberate evolution.

Meta Description

CoinShares research shows only ~10,200 BTC face realistic quantum risk, arguing Bitcoin has decades to adapt through post-quantum upgrades.

FAQ

What is CoinShares’ main conclusion about quantum risk to Bitcoin?

CoinShares concludes that only a narrow subset of Bitcoin around 10,200 BTC held in specific legacy addresses is realistically worth targeting under future quantum attack scenarios.

Why are P2PK addresses considered vulnerable?

P2PK addresses expose public keys directly on-chain, making them theoretically susceptible to private key recovery using Shor’s algorithm once quantum hardware matures.

Can quantum computers break Bitcoin today?

No. Current quantum machines are vastly underpowered and fall short by roughly five orders of magnitude compared to what would be required for practical Bitcoin attacks.

Does quantum computing threaten Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap?

No. Quantum algorithms do not affect Bitcoin’s issuance rules or monetary policy, which are enforced at the consensus level.

How can Bitcoin mitigate quantum-related risks?

Bitcoin can gradually adopt post-quantum signature schemes via soft forks, allowing users to migrate funds without rushed or disruptive protocol changes.

Disclaimer: The views expressed belong exclusively to the author and do not reflect the views of this platform. This platform and its affiliates disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy or suitability of the information provided. It is for informational purposes only and not intended as financial or investment advice.