Recently, the crypto world has been discussing the threat of quantum computers to Bitcoin, and I’ve looked into the discussions and found that many people are scared.

The core panic point is actually quite simple: if quantum computers can truly crack Bitcoin’s elliptic curve signature system, then early wallets from the Satoshi era would be exposed to risk. It’s said that 1.7 million Bitcoins are stored in addresses vulnerable to quantum attacks, which at current prices amounts to about $145 billion. That indeed sounds like a nuclear-level negative event.

But here’s an interesting point. If we look at historical data, during bull markets, long-term holders sell an average of 10,000 to 30k Bitcoins per day. At this rate, even if all 1.7 million Bitcoins were to be dumped all at once, it would only be a normal profit-taking cycle spanning two or three months. Moreover, in the previous bear market, just one quarter saw over 2.3 million Bitcoins changing hands, and the market didn’t experience a systemic collapse at that time.

The computational threat posed by quantum computers is real, but the problem is that market liquidity is far stronger than we think. Exchanges see inflows of nearly 85,000 Bitcoins per month, and the derivatives market’s trading volume every few days is enough to absorb this entire batch of old wallets. So, the $145 billion figure sounds scary on its own, but when placed against the turnover rate of the entire Bitcoin ecosystem, it’s actually not that big.

Analyst James Check pointed out a key point: even if hackers actually mastered this technology, they wouldn’t be foolish enough to dump everything at once. Any rational person knows that doing so would shoot themselves in the foot; instead, they would gradually sell off in batches, or even hedge through derivatives to maximize profits.

So, the real interesting question isn’t whether the market can withstand this wave of selling, but rather the governance choices of the Bitcoin community. When the quantum threat truly approaches, should the Bitcoin network activate mechanisms like BIP-361 to freeze these threatened addresses? Or should it stick to the principles of decentralization and censorship resistance, letting the market naturally resolve the issue? That’s the real question the crypto community needs to think about.