Bitcoin does not face an immediate threat from quantum computing, but upgrading the network to quantum-resistant cryptography could take five to ten years, according to leading developers. The discussion has resurfaced following comments from Bitcoin developer and security expert Jameson Lopp, who urged caution without alarm.
In a recent post on X, Lopp said quantum computers are not close to breaking Bitcoin’s cryptographic protections and that the ecosystem has time to respond. “No, quantum computers won’t break Bitcoin in the near future,” he wrote, adding that developers will continue to monitor advances in the technology.
The comments echo a broader assessment reported by Cointelegraph, which highlighted that while post-quantum cryptography already exists, migrating Bitcoin would be a slow and complex process. Unlike centralized systems, Bitcoin upgrades require widespread agreement across miners, node operators, wallet providers, and users.
Why migration would take years
Lopp has previously argued that a full transition to quantum-resistant signatures could “easily” take five to ten years. The challenge is not only technical but social. Any major cryptographic change would likely require new address formats, wallet upgrades, and a long transition period to allow users to move funds safely.
Bitcoin currently relies on elliptic curve cryptography, which could theoretically be broken by sufficiently powerful quantum computers using Shor’s algorithm. However, experts agree that such machines do not yet exist at a scale capable of attacking Bitcoin in practice.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back has also downplayed near-term risks, noting that quantum computing remains far from the level needed to threaten real-world cryptographic systems. He and others argue that premature or rushed changes could introduce new vulnerabilities.
Implications for long-term confidence
The debate highlights a familiar tension in Bitcoin governance: balancing long-term security planning with resistance to disruptive changes. Some community members worry that delaying preparation could harm confidence if quantum breakthroughs accelerate. Others believe acting too early would impose unnecessary costs and complexity.
For now, the prevailing view among core developers is pragmatic. Quantum risk is real in the long run, but not urgent today. That window gives Bitcoin time to study standards, test proposals, and design a migration path that minimizes disruption.
As Lopp’s message makes clear, the issue is not whether Bitcoin can adapt, but when it will need to.