Bitcoin Quantum Security Controversy Heats Up: Michael Saylor Downplays Risks, Industry Experts Warn the Upgrade Window Is Narrowing

As the blockchain industry begins to confront the potential threats posed by quantum computing, Bitcoin’s quantum security issues have once again become a market focus. Recently, Solana has deployed quantum digital signatures on its testnet, and Ethereum has incorporated quantum safety into its long-term roadmap, highlighting the high level of attention mainstream public chains are paying to future cryptographic risks. In comparison, although Bitcoin has had related discussions and proposals, whether it can complete upgrades before the actual quantum threat arrives remains widely debated.

Michael Saylor, a prominent figure in Bitcoin enterprise finance, holds a relatively optimistic view. He believes that quantum computing will not destroy Bitcoin; instead, it might “strengthen Bitcoin,” and hints that large tech companies and government systems will take the lead in solving quantum security issues, thus leaving ample response time for Bitcoin. This statement has sparked clear disagreements within the community.

Several blockchain and cryptography experts have expressed caution regarding Saylor’s viewpoint. Eli Ben-Sasson, founder of Starknet and Zcash, pointed out that theoretically, Bitcoin can achieve quantum-safe upgrades, but in practice, consensus mechanisms are extremely slow, making even relatively simple improvement proposals difficult to push forward, let alone a major cryptographic upgrade involving the entire network. Mihailo Bjelic, former co-founder of Polygon, also warned that even if the upgrade process proceeds smoothly, it typically takes more than two years, and the possibility of achieving a “frictionless upgrade” in a real environment is extremely low.

On the risk assessment front, some institutions have provided more quantitative judgments. Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, estimates that between 2028 and 2030, the probability of Bitcoin facing a quantum attack could reach 34% to 55%. If the upgrade is delayed, the risk of value depreciation for Bitcoin will also increase accordingly. He emphasizes that considering the 2 to 3 years needed for deployment, this risk is not distant.

From a technical perspective, Bitcoin’s current reliance on the ECDSA signature mechanism is theoretically vulnerable to quantum algorithms, while SHA-256 hashing is relatively more secure. Experts note that some early addresses, especially those from the Satoshi era, are at higher exposure risk; in contrast, the new generation of SegWit addresses has, to some extent, improved resistance to quantum attacks.

Overall, whether quantum computing will threaten Bitcoin in the short term remains uncertain, but industry consensus is forming: the “time window” for Bitcoin to undergo quantum-safe upgrades is narrowing. Whether the risk manifests in five or ten years, discussions and preparations around Bitcoin’s quantum security are no longer purely theoretical issues.