Could Quantum Computing Compromise Bitcoin?

• Quantum computing advancements pose critical risks to Bitcoin’s encryption, with potential disruptions to cybersecurity systems worldwide, experts emphasize.
• Updating Bitcoin’s protocols for quantum safety could require up to 305 days, risking severe financial and operational consequences for the network.

Bitcoin, surpassing $108,200 at its peak, now faces potential threats from quantum computing advancements. Emerging technology capable of solving complex calculations in minutes, previously requiring billions of years for supercomputers, has raised significant concerns within the research community.

Quantum computing’s ability to exploit encryption vulnerabilities heightens risks for Bitcoin and other digital platforms. Carlos Perez-Delgado, a senior lecturer at the University of Kent, highlights the potential for such systems to disrupt encrypted emails and sensitive accounts, creating a broader cybersecurity challenge.

“If I had a large quantum computer right now, I could essentially take over all the Bitcoin,” said Carlos Perez-Delgado.

At the University of Kent’s School of Computing, researchers examined how Bitcoin can withstand this technological change. Their findings indicated that the most successful protocol update would require 76 days of downtime, which could result in economic losses of $912 million, calculated from the average costs of business interruptions.

The Cost of Staying Secure

Alternatively, Bitcoin could allocate 25% of its resources to the update while keeping the network functional, albeit at a reduced capacity. However, this compromise would stretch the downtime to a staggering 305 days—over 10 months. This extended timeline could slow transactions and strain Bitcoin’s ecosystem, already criticized for its sluggish processing speeds.

Perez-Delgado highlighted the financial and logistical obstacles of an overhaul, noting technology downtime can be highly expensive. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin complicates the process, unlike centralized entities like Google that deploy updates rapidly. Bitcoin needs consensus from its vast network of 275 million users.

“Bringing your technology down…can be very, very costly, even if it’s on for a few minutes or a few hours,” said Perez-Delgado

What we’re showing here in our paper is that for Bitcoin, or any system like Bitcoin, you take days, weeks or even months, to perform the update.

Additionally, the intricate structure of the blockchain poses further challenges. Updating encryption requires revising each transaction individually, an enormous task given Bitcoin’s processing limitations. While speeding up transaction times is an option, it could undermine the platform’s ability to manage user activity effectively.

The Quantum Reality

Quantum computing’s potential to disrupt cryptographic systems is no longer speculative. Google’s Willow chip, announced recently, is designed to perform calculations at speeds unimaginable with current technology. While large-scale quantum computers capable of breaking Bitcoin’s encryption aren’t expected within the decade, Perez-Delgado urges tech players to prepare.

“The indisputable fact that nobody can argue is that when we do get there, our current securities… will be in great danger,” he said. Public-private key encryption, the backbone of many cybersecurity systems, is particularly vulnerable. Quantum-safe cryptography offers a solution, but implementing it in decentralized systems like Bitcoin remains an uphill battle.

Is There a Way Out?

Despite the daunting challenges, Perez-Delgado doesn’t see this as a death knell for Bitcoin. Strategies like de-throttling transaction speeds could ease the update process, even if they strain user capacity. “Those side effects are well worth the cost,” he remarked, underscoring the importance of staying ahead of technological threats.

For now, Bitcoin’s community and developers face a ticking clock. Preparing for a quantum future might require sacrifices in performance and profitability, but the alternative—a sudden collapse of encryption—could be far more catastrophic.