Quantum Computer Threat to Bitcoin: Saylor Sees No Immediate Danger

Quantum Computer Debate: Composure versus Preparedness in the Crypto Sector

The question of whether quantum computers could threaten Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is dividing the industry. While some protagonists like Michael Saylor classify the danger as exaggerated and distant, others – led by Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin – are already advancing concrete countermeasures. The discussion reveals different risk assessments and time horizons, but also raises the question: Is Bitcoin prepared for a potential quantum threat?

The debate is gaining urgency as Bitcoin has corrected significantly from its highs of over $126,000, with some market observers suggesting quantum risks as a possible factor in the price weakness. A nuanced look at the technical risks, timeframes, and existing solution approaches is therefore essential.

The Facts

Michael Saylor, CEO of Strategy and one of the most prominent Bitcoin advocates, spoke extensively about quantum computers on Natalie Brunell's podcast. His central message: a credible threat to Bitcoin is not expected until more than ten years from now at the earliest ^[1][2]. The Strategy founder emphasized that the cybersecurity community largely agrees that a serious quantum threat is still far away ^[2].

Should a technological breakthrough occur nonetheless, Saylor expects coordinated software updates across all digital infrastructures. This would affect global banking systems, the internet, end devices, artificial intelligence networks, and crypto protocols like Bitcoin ^[1][2]. "You will see it coming. We will all see it coming," Saylor explained, pointing out that such a change would not come as a surprise ^[1]. Bitcoin software is designed to evolve – nodes, hardware, and wallets could be updated as needed ^[1][2].

Saylor described the crypto sector as the "most advanced cybersecurity community" and referenced established security mechanisms such as multi-factor authentication and hardware keys ^[1][2]. The procedures for moving Bitcoin are significantly stricter than security standards for traditional bank transfers or stock trading, he argued ^[1]. "I think the crypto community will be the first to recognize the danger and respond to it, taking a pioneering role," said the Bitcoiner ^[1][2].

The Bitcoin community has already presented a first concrete solution proposal for quantum-resistant cryptography with BIP 360 ^[1]. However, global consensus on countermeasures would only emerge when a concrete threat exists, as governments, technology companies, and financial institutions would all be affected ^[1][2].

While Saylor downplays the risks, other actors appear more concerned. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin pointed to the forecasting platform Metaculus in late 2025, which sees a 20 percent probability that quantum computers could crack current cryptography before 2030 – with a median estimate around 2040 ^[2]. At an appearance in Buenos Aires, Buterin warned that the elliptic curve cryptography on which Ethereum and Bitcoin are based could fail before the 2028 U.S. presidential election, calling for a transition to quantum-resistant systems within the next four years ^[2].

The Ethereum Foundation has included post-quantum preparation in its 2026 security roadmap. Researcher Justin Drake announced the formation of a dedicated post-quantum team on January 24, calling it a turning point in the Foundation's long-term quantum strategy ^[2]. Some market observers even speculate that quantum risks may have contributed to Bitcoin's recent price decline from over $126,000 to around $64,000. Nic Carter of Castle Island Ventures suggested in January that Bitcoin's "mysterious" underperformance could be attributed to quantum risk concerns ^[2]. However, this view met with opposition: Glassnode analyst James Check stated that while quantum computer plans should be made, the threat is not the "primary reason" for the price decline ^[2].

Analysis & Assessment

The different positions of Saylor and Buterin reflect two fundamentally different approaches to risk management: reactive versus proactive. Saylor's argument that a quantum threat would be recognizable in time and manageable through coordinated updates is not technically wrong. The history of cryptography shows that transitions to new standards require years of preparation and implementation – a time window that could certainly exist with gradual development of quantum technology.

However, this attitude also carries risks. Historically, technological breakthroughs have often occurred faster than expected. The assumption that "we will all see it coming" presupposes that quantum advances will be communicated transparently – a questionable assumption considering that state actors or intelligence agencies working on such technologies could deliberately conceal an information advantage. The existence of BIP 360, however, shows that the Bitcoin community takes the issue seriously and is already working on solutions.

The different time horizons are noteworthy: while Saylor speaks of "more than ten years," Buterin already sees a 20 percent probability of a breakthrough before 2030. For Bitcoin investors, this means: the risk is real, but probably not immediate. The fact that Ethereum has already formed a post-quantum team could even create a competitive advantage in the medium term if Bitcoin reacts later. On the other hand, Bitcoin has a more decentralized governance structure, which makes upgrades slower but also more robust.

The speculation that quantum risks contributed to Bitcoin's price decline appears exaggerated. The correction from $126,000 to $64,000 can be explained much more plausibly by classic factors such as profit-taking after a strong rally, macroeconomic uncertainties, and typical market cycles. It is unlikely that professional investors would sell massively due to a theoretical risk that will be relevant at the earliest in years.

Conclusion

• The quantum computer threat to Bitcoin is real, but according to expert consensus, will not become acute until a decade from now at the earliest – enough time for coordinated countermeasures by the community

• With BIP 360, a concrete solution proposal for quantum-resistant cryptography already exists, showing that Bitcoin developers have the issue on their radar and will not react at the last minute

• The different approaches of Bitcoin and Ethereum to the quantum question could become interesting in the medium term: Ethereum's proactive approach versus Bitcoin's wait-and-see attitude will undergo a practical test in the coming years

• The speculation that quantum risks are partly responsible for Bitcoin's recent price weakness lacks a solid foundation – classic market mechanics provide much more plausible explanations for the correction

• For long-term Bitcoin investors, quantum risk is not a reason to panic, but a topic that should be monitored – the decentralized nature and upgrade capability of the network are strengths, not weaknesses