BitMEX Research has shared a retrospective analysis of the long-standing debate regarding quantum computing and its potential threat to Bitcoin.
It contrasts discussions from the early days of Bitcoin (circa 2010) with the present day.
Interestingly enough, BitMEX Research claims that the arguments happening today are nearly identical to those from 15 years ago.
HOT Stories Ripple Exec Makes Massive 2026 Prediction Crypto Market Prediction: Shiba Inu (SHIB) 50% Downtrend Should End, Ethereum (ETH) Mini-Death Cross Is Nothing, Bitcoin $80,000 Drop: Flip or Flop?Not-So-Merry Christmas: Bitcoin to Score Second-Worst Q4 EverShiba Inu (SHIB) Price Flashes Bullish Signal, XRP Sees 34% Jump in Weekly Inflows, Cardano Midnight (NIGHT) up 20% — Crypto News Digest
In the early days, some warned that the US government could break Bitcoin’s encryption (ECDSA) within 5 years. They urged an immediate switch to "post-quantum" algorithms.
It has shared a threat from the BitcoinTalk forum that represents an early debate regarding the existential threat that quantum computing (QC) poses to Bitcoin. The discussion ranges from alarmist predictions of Bitcoin's death to skepticism regarding the feasibility of quantum technology.
You Might Also Like
Mon, 12/22/2025 - 12:17 Nothing Is 100% Failsafe: Nate Geraci Ends Bitcoin Quantum Threat DebateByGodfrey Benjamin
The thread begins with the premise that Quantum Computing acts as a "massive hammer" that could shatter current cryptographic algorithms, rendering Bitcoin useless.
Several users (Kiba, Grondilu) argued that if QC becomes powerful enough to crack Bitcoin, it will also crack SSL, banking systems, and military secrets.
A significant portion of the forum dismissed the threat as "science fiction" or "vaporware." One user noted that the most impressive feat of QC at the time was factoring the number 15, arguing that scaling this to break encryption was decades away. Users also called into question the legitimacy of D-Wave.
The benefit of waiting
If Bitcoin had panicked and switched to quantum-resistant encryption 10 or 15 years ago, it would have been a mistake, BitMEX Research argues.
Early post-quantum cryptographic signatures were massive in terms of data size (often kilobytes in size).
Implementing these early solutions would have "bloated" the blockchain, making transactions significantly larger, more expensive, and slower to process.
By waiting, Bitcoin developers can now look at much more efficient technologies.
A 350-byte signature is a major breakthrough. It is small enough to be practical for Bitcoin's block size limits.
For context, standard Bitcoin signatures (ECDSA/Schnorr) are very small (~64 bytes). Early quantum-resistant schemes were thousands of bytes.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
