Hey, I hear many people are panicking about quantum computers and Bitcoin, as if it’s already the end tomorrow? CoinShares just released a report that dispels most of these fears, and there are some interesting points there.

The gist is that although about 1.6 million BTC are in old P2PK addresses, where public keys are visible on the chain, the actually vulnerable coins are much fewer. CoinShares estimates that only around 10,200 BTC are concentrated enough that their theft could truly impact the market. The rest are spread across over 32,000 individual UTXOs with an average size of about 50 BTC each.

It’s important to understand here: even if someone has quantum computers, they would have to steal these coins one by one, instead of breaking into one large address. This makes the whole process slower and less attractive for an attacker. Plus, according to CoinShares, cracking Bitcoin’s cryptography would require quantum systems roughly 100,000 times more powerful than current machines. For context: Google Willow is a 105-qubit machine, and millions of qubits would be needed to break it.

So, quantum computers are more of a long-term engineering challenge than an immediate crisis. The report supports a gradual transition to post-quantum signatures, and proposals like BIP-360 already allow users to prepare for this.

Interestingly, these fears have resurfaced simply because the market looks for something to be afraid of when prices fluctuate. Many Bitcoin developers see this as an issue decades away, but critics rightly point out that a clear preparedness plan wouldn’t hurt, especially considering that government agencies and big tech companies are already implementing quantum-resistant systems.

On another note, MicroStrategy bought 535 BTC for about $43 million last week, at an average price of around $80,340 per coin. The company has already spent about $61.8B on its Bitcoin holdings. MSTR shares rose 1% in pre-market trading.

In any case, this discussion highlights the growing gap between developers who see this as a distant problem and institutional capital that wants a clear long-term plan. Both sides are right — a balance between realism and foresight is needed.