•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Research from Google and the California Institute of Technology suggests the timeline for quantum computing capabilities that could threaten Bitcoin security may be shorter than previously expected. While quantum systems are still experimental, the findings have renewed debate over how the network should prepare for a future in which quantum computers could undermine the cryptography used to secure blockchain transactions.
Adam Back, an early pioneer in cryptocurrency, said the Bitcoin community should begin planning for a quantum-shaped future even if the threat is still decades away. Speaking at Paris Blockchain Week, Back emphasized that current quantum computers are far from being able to break Bitcoin’s cryptography and are better described as lab experiments.
Back argued that the safest path would be to develop optional upgrades that would allow users to transition to quantum-resistant cryptographic methods if needed. He said this would enable changes to be implemented gradually, avoiding rushed network decisions during a crisis.
Quantum computing poses a risk because it could, in theory, break cryptographic systems that secure blockchain networks. If that capability becomes practical, malicious actors could potentially access wallets and compromise funds.
Back previously suggested that such capabilities may be 20 to 40 years away, but recent research challenges that timeline. Studies involving Google and the California Institute of Technology indicate that functional quantum computers could arrive sooner than expected and may require less computational power to crack cryptographic systems. Some projections cited in the research suggest Bitcoin’s security could theoretically be broken within minutes.
In response to these risks, Blockstream has established a dedicated quantum research team and is exploring potential solutions. The work includes experimenting with hash-based signature schemes on its Liquid Network and considering how upgrades such as Taproot could support alternative cryptographic methods without disrupting existing users.
Back said he remains confident the community can coordinate effectively if the threat becomes imminent, noting that past vulnerabilities were addressed quickly when necessary.
BitMEX Research introduced a proposal aimed at addressing quantum risk with a more cautious approach than preemptive coin freezes. The plan centers on a “canary fund” designed to detect real-world quantum capability before any defensive measures are triggered.
The proposal involves creating a special Bitcoin address using a Nothing-Up-My-Sleeve Number, a cryptographic construct intended to ensure that no one knows the private key, making the address effectively unspendable under current technological conditions. If a sufficiently powerful quantum computer were developed, it could theoretically derive the private key and access the funds.
Participants would be encouraged to send Bitcoin to this address as part of a bounty system, incentivizing entities with quantum capabilities to attempt to spend from it. If a transaction were executed, it would serve as proof that Bitcoin’s existing cryptographic protections had been compromised.
Under the framework described by BitMEX, a soft fork would only trigger more aggressive measures—such as freezing vulnerable coins—after the threat is proven in practice rather than anticipated in theory.
BitMEX’s approach differs from BIP-361, proposed by Jameson Lopp and other researchers, which suggested preemptively freezing dormant Bitcoin held in quantum-vulnerable addresses. That idea drew significant criticism, with some arguing it could undermine Bitcoin’s core principles by restricting access to legitimate funds.
BitMEX said its model introduces a “canary watch state,” allowing normal transaction activity to continue unless the canary address is compromised. It also said investors contributing to the fund would retain flexibility, including the ability to use multisignature setups and withdraw funds at any time.
While BitMEX presented its proposal as a more measured alternative, it acknowledged that the plan introduces complexity and potential risks. The firm argued that these trade-offs may be justified given the contentious nature of any solution involving coin freezes.
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
