The threat posed by quantum computing to Bitcoin investors is real, but its impact varies across different types of wallets, according to Galaxy Digital research analyst Will Owens.
In a report released Thursday, Owens explained that, in theory, a sufficiently advanced quantum computer could derive private keys from public keys—allowing attackers to impersonate wallet owners, forge signatures, and steal funds.
However, he emphasized that not all wallets face the same level of risk. “Most wallets are not vulnerable today,” Owens noted, adding that funds are only at risk when public keys are exposed on-chain.
He identified two primary points of vulnerability: wallets with public keys already visible on the blockchain, and those that reveal their public keys during the process of spending funds.
The potential impact of quantum computing on crypto has long been debated, often seen as a future turning point for the industry. In theory, sufficiently advanced quantum machines could break existing encryption, exposing private keys, compromising sensitive data, and enabling theft of user funds.
Ongoing debate over the scale of the threat
Some critics считают the risk overstated, arguing that practical quantum computing is still decades away and that traditional financial systems—such as banks—would likely be targeted long before Bitcoin.
Owens also addressed claims circulating online that Bitcoin Core developers are neglecting or restricting quantum-related proposals, including ideas like the BIP 360 soft fork. According to his findings, this criticism doesn’t hold up.
He noted that development activity in this area has picked up significantly since late 2025, adding that there is meaningful progress being made to address potential quantum vulnerabilities.
“Contrary to some public criticism, our review found substantial developer work addressing the question of quantum vulnerabilities and mitigations,” Owens said.
“The ecosystem now has a concrete and maturing set of proposals spanning the full problem surface. These proposals are not theoretical. They are being actively developed, reviewed, and debated by some of the most experienced contributors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.”
Others in the crypto space have also proposed potential safeguards. Veteran analyst Willy Woo suggested last November that one way to protect Bitcoin holdings from future quantum threats is to store them in a SegWit wallet for the next several years, buying time until more robust solutions are developed.
Governance could be a hurdle
Even if developers arrive at a post-quantum solution, implementing it across the network may prove challenging. Owens pointed out that Bitcoin operates without a central authority—there’s no CEO, board, or governing body to enforce mandatory upgrades.
However, he noted that this particular threat could help align incentives across the ecosystem. Unlike past disagreements over Bitcoin’s economic direction, a universal, external risk like quantum computing gives all participants—miners, holders, and exchanges alike—a shared financial interest in maintaining the network’s security.
“For investors, the key takeaway is straightforward: the risk is real but recognized, and the people best positioned to address it are working on it.”
