Coinbase says Bitcoin should prepare for quantum threat now

Coinbase’s Quantitative Advisory Board urges blockchain developers to start preparing for… Post-quantum The future is now, arguing that the artwork is upgradable Bitcoin, Ethereumand other networks should not wait for consensus on what to do with weak or abandoned coins.

In a new report Released On Thursday, the council outlined one of the most controversial questions facing the industry regarding what happens to cryptocurrency whose holders never migrate to quantum-secure addresses.

“No quantum computer can currently break blockchain encryption,” the council wrote. “But timelines are uncertain, and the cryptocurrency community needs to start preparing now rather than debating exactly when the threat will arrive.”

It was launched in January by Coinbase’s Independent Advisory Board The Quantum Computing and Blockchain Conference brings together researchers from academia and industry, including representatives from Stanford University, the University of Texas at Austin, the Ethereum Foundation, Eggen Labs, Bar-Ilan University, and the University of California at Santa Barbara, to study quantum risks on blockchain networks.

The report comes as researchers warning A “cryptographically relevant quantum computer” — a device powerful enough to break the elliptical-curve digital signatures protecting Bitcoin, Ethereum and other major blockchains — likely won’t exist as early as 2030.

According to the advisory board, the issue could affect millions of bitcoins held at legacy addresses where public keys are already exposed, making them directly vulnerable to a future quantum attack.

“Many of these coins are believed to be Satoshi coins or funds, and their owners have long lost their keys,” they wrote. “Consider address reuse across other address types, roughly speaking 7 million Total Bitcoin is currently considered to be at quantum risk.

The report identifies three options for coins that are not migrated to secure quantum addresses. First, freeze (or burn) them permanently after the deadline. Second, do nothing and let the users decide, adding that “forcing the burning of coins bypasses property rights and sets a precedent for network-level interference that conflicts with the fundamental principles of Bitcoin.” Third, use intermediate steps such as limiting the number of vulnerable coins that can move per block or accepting private cryptographic proofs instead of legacy signatures, allowing users to “pre-commit to a migration without publicly moving funds yet.”

“We emphasize that the above proposals are compatible with each other, and there is no reason not to adopt more than one or all of them, as each has its own merits,” they wrote.

This debate comes as major blockchain networks begin to prepare for a post-quantum future.

In January, the Ethereum Foundation formed A team to coordinate Ethereum’s transition to post-quantum security and explore replacing validator and wallet signatures with quantum-resistant alternatives. This was followed in February by Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin Mapping Off the quantum upgrade roadmap.

In April, Coinbase’s advisory board to caution Which Proof of stake networks, including Ethereum and SolanaThey may be particularly vulnerable to future quantum attacks because the validator signatures used to secure those blockchains rely on cryptography that quantum computers can eventually break.

On Tuesday, the Steeler Development Foundation unveil A roadmap for migrating users to quantum secure cryptography. Meanwhile, Bitcoin developers continue to debate how to migrate weak coins, and what should happen to the ones that never move.

“The time to prepare for a crypto transition is before it becomes urgent,” a spokesperson for Coinbase’s advisory board previously said. Decryption. “Our view is that client assets are safe today, but the industry should not confuse ‘not imminent’ with ‘not significant’.”