The subject of “bitcoin versus quantum” comes up in waves. This week, it is no longer just a debate among researchers. Part of the ecosystem is pushing to accelerate a concrete update. And another brakes hard, judging the alarm premature.
In brief
- BIP-360 relaunches the debate on the quantum resistance of bitcoin.
- Some want to accelerate from 2026, others consider the threat still distant.
- The real battle will be the migration of addresses, more political than technical.
BIP-360, the post-quantum option that shakes up bitcoin
BIP-360 proposes adding a new type of address to bitcoin capable of using so-called “post-quantum” signatures. The idea is to offer an emergency exit before more powerful machines make certain current signatures fragile.
Technically, the proposal is often summarized as a “pay-to-quantum-resistant-hash”. It mainly targets bitcoins which could become exposed if, one day, a quantum computer knows how to derive a private key from a public key. BIP-360 therefore tries to anticipate a future where this scenario is no longer science fiction.
But the most important thing is not the formula. This is the political signal. For bitcoin, any serious development requires rare coordination: hardware wallets, nodes, miners, exchange platforms, integrators. A good idea, without alignment, remains a PDF on the Internet.
Emergency or excess of caution: the divide of bitcoiners
Proponents of acceleration speak of a market risk even before a technical risk. Charles Edwards (Capriole) insists on a tight schedule and mentions a 2026 window to finalize and deploy. He goes further. According to him, coins that do not migrate to BIP-360 should even be “burned” by 2028. This radicality was shocking, but it also reawakened the conversation.
On the other hand, well-respected profiles remind us that panic can be a bad advisor. Adam Back insists in particular that bitcoin does not “do encryption” in the sense that many understand it, and that short-term breakage scenarios are mainly FUD. He considers the significant threat still distant, over the horizon of decades.
Samson Mow chooses sarcasm to deflate the bubble. His argument is almost educational: if quantum is still in modest demonstrations, why imagine that it will swallow bitcoin tomorrow morning? The mockery is mainly aimed at the idea of “panic selling” triggered by a poorly understood fear.
Taproot retreats: technical signal or psychological symptom?
One element has added fuel to the fire: the use of Taproot is declining. According to Willy Woo, the share of transactions using Taproot would have fallen from around 42% in 2024 to around 20% recently. He says he has “never seen” the newer format lose bitcoin adoption.
It's tempting to think of it as a user vote. Taproot is associated with Schnorr signatures, therefore a cryptographic family that quantum could theoretically threaten via Shor's algorithm. In this reading, less Taproot would mean “less attack surface”. And the idea is virally simple, so it spreads quickly.
Except that the reality is more nuanced. Vulnerability depends above all on a specific point: when the public key is revealed on-chain, and how long it remains exploitable. Many formats reveal the public key at the time of spending. Taproot is not magically “the only one” affected, although its public perception may become so. And, in a market, perception often ends up weighing as much as cryptography.
2026-2028: the real challenge is migration
Even if everyone agreed tomorrow, the hardest part would begin next. A post-quantum transition is a mass migration. It must be compatible, progressive, and understandable by non-specialists. Otherwise, it creates a new risk: handling errors, losses, or stuck funds.
This is also why alternatives are circulating. On the side of Blockstream Research and discussions on the bitcoindev mailing list, one avenue explored is that of “hash-based” signatures. The attraction is clear: security would rely above all on assumptions about hash functions, terrain already familiar to bitcoin.
Ultimately, the BIP-360 debate goes beyond technique. It touches on the DNA of bitcoin: move slowly, but survive everything. Those “in a hurry” fear a shock of confidence before the real attack. “Patients” fear a rushed update, more dangerous than the threat. Between the two, the network advances as it always does: by friction, by trials, and by consensus… when it finally appears. And when it comes to price, Tom Lee sees this as a strong signal.
Maximize your Tremplin.io experience with our 'Read to Earn' program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
