Bitcoin Must Prepare for Quantum Threat Now, Coinbase Says

Coinbase’s quantum advisory board is urging blockchain developers to prepare now for a post-quantum future, arguing that the technical work of upgrading Bitcoin, Ethereum and other networks should not wait for consensus on what to do with vulnerable or abandoned coins.

In a new report issued On Thursday, the council identified one of the most controversial questions facing the industry: what happens to the cryptocurrency whose owners never migrate to quantum-safe addresses.

“No quantum computer can currently break blockchain cryptography,” the council wrote. “But the timelines are uncertain and the crypto community needs to start preparing now instead of debating when exactly the threat will arrive.”

Launched in January, Coinbase’s Independent Quantum Computing and Blockchain Advisory Board brings together researchers from academia and industry, including representatives from Stanford University, the University of Texas at Austin, the Ethereum Foundation, Eigen Labs, Bar-Ilan University and UC Santa Barbara, to study quantum risks to blockchain networks.

The report comes as researchers warn that a “cryptographically relevant quantum computer” – one powerful enough to crack the digital signatures of the elliptic curve that protect Bitcoin, Ethereum and other major blockchains – will likely exist as early as 2030.

According to the advisory board, the issue could impact millions of Bitcoins located at older addresses where public keys are already public, making them immediately vulnerable to a future quantum attack.

“Many of these are believed to be Satoshi’s coins or funds whose owners have long lost their keys,” they wrote. “If you take into account the reuse of addresses for other address types, a total of approximately 7 million Bitcoin is currently considered quantum vulnerable.”

The report outlines three options for coins that do not migrate to quantum-safe addresses. First freeze them permanently (or burn them) after a deadline. Second, do nothing and let the users decide, adding that “forcing coins to burn nullifies ownership rights and sets a precedent for network-level interference that goes against Bitcoin’s core principles.” Third, use middle-of-the-road steps, such as limiting the number of vulnerable coins that can be moved per block or accepting special cryptographic proofs instead of legacy signatures, and let users “pre-commit to migrations without moving any public money.”

“We emphasize that the above proposals are compatible with each other; there is no reason not to adopt more than one or all of them, as each has its own advantages,” they wrote.

The debate comes as major blockchain networks begin to prepare for a post-quantum future.

In January, the Ethereum Foundation formed a team to coordinate Ethereum’s transition to post-quantum security and explored replacing validator and wallet signatures with quantum-resistant alternatives. This was followed in February by Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, who laid out a roadmap for quantum upgrades.

In April, the Coinbase advisory board warned that proof-of-stake networks, including Ethereum and Solana, could be particularly vulnerable to future quantum attacks because the validator signatures used to secure those blockchains rely on cryptography that quantum computers could eventually break.

On Tuesday, the Stellar Development Foundation unveiled a roadmap for migrating users to quantum-safe cryptography. Bitcoin developers, meanwhile, continue to debate how to migrate vulnerable coins – and what to do with the ones that never move.

“The right time to prepare for a cryptographic transition is before it becomes urgent,” a spokesperson for the Coinbase Advisory Board previously said. Declutter. “We believe that clients’ assets are safe today, but the industry should not confuse ‘not imminent’ with ‘not important.’”