Mentioned in This Article
1. Quantum computing Bitcoin risk: a ceiling on institutional demand
Muneeb Ali, the founder of the Stacks network, said on October 27 that uncertainty over how Bitcoin would withstand future quantum computers is already holding back institutional investment. In an appearance on a crypto podcast, he argued that the quantum computing Bitcoin debate acts as a ceiling on the asset's growth, and that large buyers may wait until developers show a credible path to quantum-resistant security.
Ali's warning is not about an attack that has happened. It concerns perception and timing. Institutions that manage other people's money are expected to document risks and justify decisions to committees, regulators and clients, so an open question about a core security assumption can be enough to delay a large allocation even if nothing has gone wrong.
Stacks is a layer-2 network that brings smart contracts and decentralized applications to Bitcoin while using the main chain as its settlement layer. Ali co-founded it, which gives him a stake in the health of the Bitcoin ecosystem and a vantage point on how institutional clients talk about its risks.
The remark lands at a time when Bitcoin is increasingly held through regulated vehicles and corporate balance sheets. Those holders answer to boards and auditors, and each of them has to be able to explain, in writing, what could go wrong with the assets they own. Quantum risk is one of the few items on that list that the protocol itself cannot yet fully answer.
Ali framed the issue as one of confidence rather than imminent danger. His claim is that the market is already pricing in the doubt through slower adoption, not through any loss of funds, which is a different argument from the more dramatic scenarios sometimes associated with the topic.
2. Why do risk-averse investors care about the quantum threat?
Bitcoin relies on public-key cryptography to prove who owns coins. In simple terms, a private key authorizes a spend and the matching public key lets the network verify it. Today's computers cannot work backward from the public key to the private one in any practical amount of time. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer is expected to be able to do so, which would let an attacker move coins that are protected by exposed keys.
That possibility is theoretical for now, because no machine of that power is known to exist. But the cost of being wrong is high, and institutional risk frameworks tend to treat low-probability, high-impact events seriously, particularly when the asset is meant to be held for many years.
Ali said these concerns lead cautious institutions to postpone big purchases. In his view, the absence of an agreed roadmap for upgrading Bitcoin's security matters as much as the underlying technical risk, because an investment committee needs to see a plan before it can sign off on exposure.
There is a further wrinkle in how Bitcoin addresses work. Coins held in some older address formats expose the public key on the blockchain, while others reveal it only when the holder spends. That difference affects which balances would be most exposed, and it is part of why a coordinated migration plan would need to address both active wallets and long-dormant ones.
Post-quantum cryptography is the field that designs signature schemes believed to resist attacks by quantum machines. Standards bodies have been working to select such schemes so that governments, banks and software makers can transition their systems. For Bitcoin, adopting one would mean changing how transactions are signed and verified, which makes it a significant protocol decision rather than a routine software update.
3. What is the timeline for quantum-resistant security?
Ali pointed to 2028 as a point by which the Bitcoin community should have made meaningful progress. If developers have not done so by then, he warned, the network could enter a riskier period. His reasoning was that upgrades to Bitcoin take years to design, test and activate, and that users then need additional time to move their holdings to new kinds of addresses.
He also cited 2030 as the target date for moving to quantum-resistant systems, a reference to guidance from the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, which sets standards for post-quantum cryptography. Ali suggested that advances in artificial intelligence could speed up the development of quantum computers, and that the practical deadline might therefore arrive sooner, possibly in 2029.
The migration he described is not trivial. Moving coins means each holder must take action, and funds that sit in old addresses whose owners are unreachable or unaware could remain exposed. That is why he stressed lead time: the sooner a plan is agreed, the longer the window for orderly migration.
The reference to standards guidance matters because large institutions tend to align their own policies with recognized government benchmarks. If a national standards body sets a date for moving off vulnerable cryptography, compliance teams are likely to expect the assets they hold to follow a comparable schedule, and an asset without a visible plan stands out.
Ali's reference to artificial intelligence was a caution about forecasting. Estimates of when a capable quantum machine might exist have been uncertain for years, and he argued that tools that speed up research could compress whatever timeline experts currently assume. Planning around the earliest plausible date, in his view, is more prudent than relying on the latest.
4. Is the threat overblown?
Ali acknowledged that part of the Bitcoin community regards the quantum threat as distant and exaggerated, and some of its members argue that the network can adapt when the danger becomes clearer. He did not dismiss that view outright, but he argued that the disagreement itself can do damage.
If institutions see a public dispute about whether to prepare, and no plan on the table, they may interpret that as unmanaged risk. In that sense, he said, the lack of consensus on urgency can erode investor confidence even before any technical breakthrough arrives.
The tension reflects a long-standing characteristic of Bitcoin governance. Changes to the protocol require broad agreement among developers, miners, businesses and users, and the network has a strong culture of caution. That culture protects the system from rushed changes, but it can also slow its response to risks that develop over a long period.
Supporters of the wait-and-see position make a practical case. A quantum machine able to break Bitcoin's signatures would also threaten banking, government communications and much of the internet's security, so the pressure to deploy defenses would be global and the tools would be broadly available by then. They argue that Bitcoin could borrow those solutions when needed.
Ali's response, as described, is that the network cannot assume a quick fix. Changes to Bitcoin are slow by design, and the process of reaching agreement, writing code, testing it and persuading users to move their coins takes time. Starting late, in his view, would leave the community improvising under pressure.
5. Who would build a quantum machine capable of attacking Bitcoin?
Ali said the first computer capable of breaking Bitcoin's cryptography would more likely come from a major research laboratory than from an anonymous attacker. He suggested companies such as Google or Microsoft would have little incentive to use such a machine to steal Bitcoin, given the legal consequences they would face.
That does not remove the risk, in his assessment. The knowledge and the hardware could spread over time, and a capability built for research could eventually be matched by others with fewer constraints. The point of his argument was to separate the likelihood of deliberate abuse by the first developers from the broader question of whether the network is prepared when the technology matures.
He added that an attack on Bitcoin would not stay contained. Because the asset anchors so much of the industry, including projects that are building their own protections, he said that if Bitcoin gets hit, everyone gets hit downstream as well.
The argument about motives is also an argument about who should be worried. Governments and large technology companies operate under legal systems and reputational constraints, while illicit actors do not. A capability that first appears inside a corporate laboratory might be contained for some time, but Ali's implicit message is that the network should not rely on that containment as a permanent safeguard.
6. What has StarkWare shown about quantum-safe transactions?
Work on practical defenses is already under way. In September, StarkWare reported that researchers had cut the estimated computing cost of preparing an experimental quantum-resistant Bitcoin transaction by 79%, following a weeklong optimization challenge.
The approach does not require any change to Bitcoin's consensus rules, which means it could in principle be used without the network-wide agreement a protocol upgrade demands. There are important caveats, however. The cost reductions were demonstrated only in benchmark tests rather than in live use, and StarkWare itself describes the method as a last-resort measure.
The company continues to advocate a protocol-level upgrade as the long-term solution. A protocol change would build quantum-resistant signatures into the network itself, rather than relying on workarounds that individual holders must perform at a cost.
The exchange between Ali's concerns and StarkWare's research shows the shape of the debate. Engineers are making progress on emergency options, while the larger question of a coordinated, network-wide upgrade remains unsettled.
The significance of the benchmark result lies in cost. If the expense of preparing a quantum-resistant transaction is high, only holders with very large balances would consider using it. A reduction of 79% makes the option more realistic for some users, though the figures still describe tests and do not show what the method would cost in routine operation.
A last-resort tool is meant for the scenario in which the network has not upgraded in time and holders need a way to protect themselves individually. That is a very different role from a standard that every wallet would follow, and it explains why even its developers still point to a protocol-level upgrade as the real answer.
7. What happens next?
No formal decision is scheduled that would resolve the question. The milestones Ali highlighted, 2028 for visible progress and 2030 for the NIST-aligned transition, are the dates that observers are likely to measure the Bitcoin community against.
In the near term, the signals to watch are whether developers publish a concrete upgrade proposal, whether discussion moves from whether to prepare to how, and whether institutional investors begin to cite progress on quantum readiness when explaining their allocations.
Ali's argument is that the cost of waiting falls on the asset's growth even if no quantum computer ever threatens it. Whether that proves true will depend on how quickly the community can replace uncertainty with a plan that large investors regard as credible.