Author: Fang Dao

In the past few days, readers have asked me a more specific question:

If quantum computing really enters an executable stage, will different public chains be impacted simultaneously?

Theoretically, the answer is "yes."

But structurally, the answer is closer to "no."

After quantum computing enters the engineering pathway, the market begins to reassess a more granular question: how the potential impact of this underlying cryptography will be distributed among public chains with different architectures.

On the surface, systems based on Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) face similar risks; but in practical structure, the exposure of these risks is significantly asymmetric.

The first watershed of risk comes from the exposure paths of addresses and signatures.

In the Bitcoin (P2PKH) system, as long as the funds are unspent, only the address hash is publicly exposed on the chain, rather than the public key, which sets up a natural "delayed exposure" mechanism for potential attacks.

In contrast, Ethereum's account model (Account-based) and high-frequency contract interactions keep the public keys of many active accounts in a state of long-term exposure.

Under the same technological premise, the immediate exposure attack surface of different networks is not consistent. This difference makes risk no longer uniformly distributed but rather shows path dependence.

The second layer of difference comes from the system's upgrade mechanism.

Bitcoin's consensus formation is extremely restrained, and any changes involving the underlying cryptographic algorithms are accompanied by longer cycles and higher coordination costs; whereas Ethereum has a higher iteration frequency and more flexible protocol adjustment capability.

This leads to a non-intuitive result:

Systems with wider exposure paths may have faster migration capabilities; while more conservative systems are more constrained by consensus stickiness in their defensive rhythm.

Risk exposure and response speed do not correspond linearly.

The third difference comes from ecological structure.

Bitcoin's functionality is focused on value storage, making its risk boundaries relatively clear; while Ethereum supports a large number of smart contracts, Layer 2, and decentralized finance (DeFi) structures.

When the underlying signature mechanism is impacted, its effects are no longer limited to the assets themselves but may trigger a chain reaction through the application layer. The higher the system complexity, the longer the potential impact propagation paths.

Under this structure, quantum risk is no longer a unified variable but begins to exhibit layered characteristics. It is no longer simply a question of "whether it is safe," but depends on: which paths are prioritized for exposure, and whether the system has the capability to migrate within the window period.

At the current stage, quantum computing has not yet formed a real attack capability. However, as the technological pathway becomes clearer, discussions about risk have shifted from "whether it occurs" to "how it is distributed."

Within this framework, the market ultimately will not only price "whether it is safe," but will begin to price: which types of assets are more likely to be exposed first when the shock occurs. In the face of the same technological singularity, the performance of different public chains is likely not to be synchronous.

References

Ethereum Research, Bitcoin Core Discussions, NIST PQC

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and research communication only and does not constitute any investment advice.

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。