A small but growing group of Bitcoin advocates and fund managers is pushing for faster work on quantum-resistant signatures, arguing that even the perception of a future quantum threat could become a market risk before it is practical.

Supporters have pointed to a draft Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, BIP-360, which would add a post-quantum signature option for addresses viewed as potentially vulnerable to future advances in quantum computing.

Calls for a 2026 timeline

Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole, said the implementation must be finalized and deployed in 2026, while noting it would require coordination across hardware wallet providers, node operators, and exchanges.

Edwards wrote:

“Around 20-30% of Bitcoin will be taken by a quantum hacker in the next few years.”

He added:

“I believe we should burn all coins that do not migrate to BIP-360 by 2028.”

Back and Mow push back on urgency

Others dismissed the idea that quantum computing poses a near-term threat to Bitcoin.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back argued the risk is still far off, writing that the threat is “decades away,” and criticized quantum fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Jan3 CEO Samson Mow also mocked the idea that current quantum machines could break Bitcoin, writing:

“Quantum computing can’t even factor 21, yet people are panic selling because they think it will kill Bitcoin.”

Taproot usage raises questions

Bitcoin analyst Willy Woo said Taproot usage has fallen from 42% of transactions in 2024 to 20%, calling the decline unusual.

Woo wrote:

“I’ve NEVER seen the latest format losing adoption before. Taproot is Quantum Vulnerable, while older SegWit and Legacy are not.”

Competing post-quantum ideas

Back has also proposed a hash-based signature approach as a post-quantum alternative, according to a Blockstream Research paper released Dec. 5.

Bitcoin currently relies on ECDSA and Schnorr signatures to authorize spending, and any new standard would require broad ecosystem consensus.