Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
So the quantum computing doomsday narrative for bitcoin keeps getting recycled, but a new analysis from CoinShares is basically saying everyone's panicking over something way smaller than the headlines suggest.
Here's the thing that actually matters: yes, roughly 1.6 million BTC sits in older P2PK addresses where public keys are visible on-chain. That sounds scary until you realize most of it is scattered across over 32,000 different UTXOs. The real concern—the amount that could actually trigger meaningful market disruption if stolen—comes down to just 10,200 BTC. That's the number everyone should focus on.
Think about it from a quantum attacker's perspective. Even if you somehow had quantum computers powerful enough to break bitcoin's cryptography, you're not stealing from one fat wallet and walking away rich. You'd have to crack 10,200 BTC spread across thousands of smaller holdings, each averaging around 50 BTC. That's tedious, time-consuming, and way less profitable than the doomsayers make it sound.
CoinShares' math is pretty straightforward: breaking bitcoin's current cryptography would require quantum systems roughly 100,000 times more powerful than what exists today. We're talking at least a decade away, probably longer. Google's Willow chip has 105 qubits—key-breaking would need millions. So this isn't an emergency, it's an engineering problem bitcoin can gradually solve.
The real debate isn't about the timeline anymore. It's about whether developers are actually preparing. Some proposals like BIP-360 could let users migrate to post-quantum signatures over time, but there's clearly tension between the developer community and institutional players who want more visible long-term planning.
Bottom line: quantum risk is real but not imminent. The market's probably overweighting this threat relative to what the actual data shows. Worth keeping on the radar, but not worth losing sleep over next quarter.