The rise of quantum computing (QC) frequently generates headlines speculating on the impending demise of Bitcoin due to its cryptographic reliance. However, a deeper analysis, aligned with viewpoints often shared by firms like CoinShares, suggests that the perceived threat is both remote and manageable, not warranting immediate concern over asset security.
**The Theoretical Threat vs. Current Reality**
Bitcoin’s security primarily rests on two cryptographic functions: SHA-256 for proof-of-work mining and the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) for verifying ownership and signing transactions. The primary vulnerability stems from Shor’s algorithm, which, if run on a sufficiently powerful quantum computer, could efficiently break ECDSA, allowing an attacker to generate the private key from a known public key, thereby draining wallets.
The critical distinction lies in the capability required. Today’s quantum machines, possessing tens or hundreds of noisy, error-prone qubits, are nowhere near the scale necessary. Breaking modern 256-bit ECDSA would require a fault-tolerant quantum computer (FTQC) with millions of stable, logical qubits—a technological leap that experts commonly project as 10 to 20 years away, or even longer.
**The Adaptation Window and Known Solution**
The most compelling argument against immediate quantum risk is the existence of a clear, actionable upgrade path. The Bitcoin network is not static; it is capable of integrating technological improvements through consensus-driven updates (soft or hard forks).
Security institutions worldwide, including the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), are already standardizing Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) algorithms, such as lattice-based cryptography, which are resistant to known quantum attacks. When the threat level increases, the Bitcoin community will have ample time—likely years or decades—to migrate the network’s signature scheme to a quantum-resistant alternative before a viable FTQC is operational.
**Exposure and Mitigation**
Furthermore, not all Bitcoin holdings are equally exposed. Standard transactions only reveal the public key after the funds have been spent once. This limits the attack window for the majority of ‘hodled’ coins that remain in legacy addresses. While newly generated or spent UTXOs (Unspent Transaction Outputs) are more vulnerable during the brief period their public keys are exposed on the blockchain, this remains a challenge that can be solved through proactive PQC adoption.
In conclusion, while the theoretical quantum threat to ECDSA is real, the required quantum hardware is still science fiction. The risk is a long-term, visible engineering problem, providing the Bitcoin ecosystem with a substantial and well-defined runway to implement quantum-safe defenses.
Source: Why Quantum Computing Isn’t a Serious Risk for Bitcoin Yet: CoinShares
コメント