Foreign media, citing multiple industry insiders, stated that once quantum computing reaches the stage where it can practically break encryption systems, encrypted networks may be the first to suffer the impact. This is not only due to the cryptographic systems used by Bitcoin and Ethereum, but also because decentralized networks upgrade slowly, making it difficult to switch systems as quickly as banks or large institutions.
The timeline for quantum risk has been brought forward.
Eddy Zervigon, CEO of Quantum Xchange, told CoinDesk that cryptocurrencies are likely to be among the first areas to show signs of attack. Once an incident occurs on the Bitcoin network, it often means that a quantum computer with the actual capability to hack into it has already appeared on the market.
He mentioned that companies involved in quantum computing, such as Microsoft and IBM, generally expect that commercially viable quantum computers capable of breaking existing encryption systems may emerge around 2029. Google researchers also gave a more aggressive estimate this year: the number of physical qubits required to break the elliptic curve cryptography relied upon by Bitcoin and Ethereum has decreased significantly compared to previous expectations.
The White House is also accelerating related deployments. The report mentions that the US government aims to advance stronger quantum computing capabilities by 2028 and migrate high-value assets and federal data to a post-quantum cryptography system by 2030. This makes the industry's assessment of the time window even more urgent.
The real challenge lies in the speed of governance.
The article argues that the main obstacle facing Bitcoin is not the lack of post-quantum cryptography solutions, but rather the need for broad consensus on network upgrades. Deutsche Digital Assets, in a commentary on July 23, stated that the biggest difference between traditional financial institutions and decentralized public blockchains lies in governance efficiency.
For example, upgrading cryptographic infrastructure typically only requires a board resolution, budget, and supplier cooperation, without waiting for a consensus among a large number of anonymous global participants. In contrast, public blockchain upgrades often require a longer coordination period, and the implementation process is more prone to disagreements.
Academic research also supports this assessment. A 2024 arXiv paper pointed out that if Bitcoin is to advance its quantum security upgrade, it may require miners to reach a 90% consensus, and historical experience shows that major upgrades often face significant resistance. The SegWit upgrade in 2017 sparked long-term controversy and ultimately led to the emergence of forks such as Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold.
Risks may not erupt all at once.
The report also mentioned that the market often interprets "Q-Day" as a specific point in time, where the encryption system is secure before a certain day and then suddenly becomes ineffective. However, respondents believe that this understanding is too simplistic.
If an attacker can gradually decrypt the data over several months, during which time the data or assets still retain value, then the quantum threat already possesses real destructive power. This means that a quantum computer does not necessarily need to crack the signature in real time; as long as the attack is completed before the assets lose their value, it is sufficient to pose a risk.
Based on this, the article argues that post-quantum cryptography schemes themselves may not be too late to prepare; the real uncertainty lies in whether public chains such as Bitcoin can complete governance coordination and upgrade deployment quickly enough before the risks approach.
