Emre Yumlu 
Michael Saylor recently reignited the debate around quantum computing and Bitcoin by arguing that future quantum advances could ultimately strengthen the network rather than undermine it. According to Saylor, protocol upgrades would allow active coins to migrate to quantum-resistant structures, while long-lost coins would remain inaccessible. In theory, this would enhance security and even reduce effective supply. However, a closer look at the technical foundations suggests the reality may be more nuanced.
Where Bitcoin Is Actually Vulnerable
Bitcoin’s exposure to quantum computing does not stem from mining or proof-of-work. The real concern lies in its digital signature scheme. The network relies on ECDSA and Schnorr signatures built on the secp256k1 elliptic curve. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could, in principle, derive private keys from publicly revealed keys.
Current estimates suggest that such an attack would require roughly 2,000 to 4,000 logical qubits. Today’s hardware is far from this threshold, implying that Bitcoin likely has a preparation window of at least a decade. This buffer provides time for research, testing, and gradual upgrades—but it does not eliminate the challenge.
Post-Quantum Cryptography Comes at a Cost
The cryptography community has not been idle. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology has already finalized several post-quantum digital signature standards, including ML-DSA (Dilithium) and SLH-DSA (SPHINCS+), with Falcon also moving toward standardization. In theory, Bitcoin could adopt these schemes through new output types or hybrid signature models.
The trade-off is efficiency. Post-quantum signatures are significantly larger and more computationally demanding. This would reduce effective block capacity, increase transaction fees, and raise the operational burden on nodes. The harder problem, however, is not engineering—it is governance. Coordinating a global consensus-driven upgrade is far more complex than deploying new code.
Saylor and Lost Coins
One of the most controversial assumptions is that “lost coins” would simply remain frozen. On-chain data tells a different story. The real risk is not whether a coin is actively used, but whether its public key is already visible on the blockchain.
Legacy P2PK outputs and modern Taproot (P2TR) outputs expose public keys by design. Estimates suggest that roughly 25% of the total Bitcoin supply—around 1.7 million BTC—falls into this category. These coins are not necessarily frozen; many are simply unattended. In a true quantum scenario, they could become prime targets.
Scarcity or Systemic Stress?
A post-quantum transition does not automatically imply reduced supply. Multiple outcomes are possible: unupgraded coins may be abandoned, exposed coins could be compromised, or markets could react defensively long before a real threat materializes.
Bitcoin may indeed emerge stronger in a quantum era, but the path there is unlikely to be smooth. The challenge is less about cryptography itself and more about coordination, incentives, and collective action. Saylor’s optimism ultimately rests not on mathematics alone, but on confidence in human decision-making under pressure.
You can also freely share your thoughts and comments about the topic in the comment section. Additionally, don’t forget to follow us on our Telegram, YouTube, and Twitter channels for the latest news and updates.