I've noticed that lately, discussions about quantum threats to Bitcoin are becoming more frequent, especially when the market starts to wobble. People are looking for reasons to panic, and quantum computers have become a convenient scapegoat. But here’s a report from CoinShares that somewhat cools these fears.

The point is that the danger is clearly exaggerated. Yes, approximately 1.6 million bitcoins are stored on old P2PK addresses, where public keys are visible on the blockchain. But that’s only 8 percent of the total supply. Sounds threatening? Wait.

CoinShares conducted a more detailed analysis and found something interesting. Of these 1.6 million, only about 10,200 bitcoins are concentrated in amounts that could truly cause serious market shocks. The rest are spread across more than 32,000 individual portions, averaging 50 bitcoins each. This radically changes the picture.

Imagine a quantum attacker who has to hack thousands of small addresses instead of stealing one large asset and disappearing. It’s slower, louder, less profitable. Even with state-of-the-art equipment, the process becomes far less attractive.

Regarding the quantum computers themselves, CoinShares estimates that cracking Bitcoin’s cryptography would require machines roughly 100,000 times more powerful than existing ones. For context: Google Willow has 105 qubits, and for real hacking, millions would be needed. This pushes the threat at least a decade into the future, if not further.

Broad estimates suggesting that 20–50 percent of all bitcoins could become vulnerable blur the line between theoretical vulnerability and real danger. These are two different things.

Instead of panicking, developers suggest a more reasonable approach: a gradual transition to post-quantum digital signatures. This is not an emergency but a predictable engineering challenge that Bitcoin will be able to solve over time. Proposals like BIP-360 are already working on wallet formats for smooth migration.

Debates around this issue have revealed a growing gap between developers, who see the problem as long-term, and increasingly institutional capital, which demands a clearer plan. But that’s a separate story.