Earlier this year, in March specifically, I covered some debates in the Bitcoin community concerning quantum computers and the threat to what was termed “lost Bitcoins.”
The gist of this past coverage is that the Bitcoin community began flirting with the idea of burning people's bitcoin in inactive addresses to avoid institutions recovering these coins.
You can find the article here.
Anyone with a half-decent and functioning brain can tell that it is very stupid and a show of absence of critical reasoning for one to suggest what is essentially an act of forcefully taking other people's coins and throwing them away for selfish reasons.
That said, the topic of quantum computers and their threat to bitcoin has again hit the news and this time, Michael Saylor is making an argument on this and I thought it's critical to explore what risks really are there for Bitcoin as quantum computers advance.
But first, what are Quantum computers?
Quantum computers are advanced types of computers that use the principles of quantum mechanics—the science that explains the behavior of matter and energy on very small scales, like atoms and subatomic particles.
Quantum computers could solve certain problems much faster than classical computers. This includes:
Breaking encryption (RSA, for example) – potentially a cybersecurity concern.
Simulating molecules for drug discovery and materials science.
Optimizing complex systems – like logistics, finance, and AI models.
Solving mathematical problems that are intractable today.
In short, quantum computers have the potential to revolutionize computing, but the technology is still in its early stages. — ChatGPT
From the above explanation from ChatGPT, we can conclude that quantum computers are essentially “supercomputers” — they actually are called that — and their potential is a threat to most things in our world today.
With that out of the way, let's dive into the report covering Michael Saylor’s comment on Quantum computers.
Bitcoin quantum threat is a ploy by ‘yo-yo token’ sellers: Saylor
Bitcoin bull Michael Saylor has downplayed concerns over quantum computing’s impact on Bitcoin, calling it a marketing ploy to pump quantum-branded tokens.
“It’s mainly marketing from people that want to sell you the next quantum yo-yo token,” Strategy’s executive chairman said in a June 6 interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
Classic Bitcoin maxi response right there.
What's funny is that he goes right ahead to talk about “an upgrade” which would, frankly speaking, make Bitcoin a quantum yo-yo coin itself because it's now resistant.
If a legitimate quantum computer did come along and threaten Bitcoin’s security, the protocol’s core developers and hardware manufacturers would implement a fix, Saylor said:
“The answer is: Bitcoin network hardware upgrade, Bitcoin network software upgrade, just like Microsoft, Google, the US government upgrade. — Cointelegraph report
But he can be excused because he's always going to do anything to ensure that maximum shill is given to his bags, Bitcoin!
So, the big question now is: is he right about this?
Short answer: yes.
Slightly longer answer:
Quantum computers, when they initially hit advancement points that would be capable of hacking Bitcoin, will likely care less about bitcoin.
Unless Bitcoin has become very central to world economies and power, essentially worth several hundreds of trillions at that time, people who have access to supercomputers capable of destabilizing millions of critical systems powering the whole world aren't going to waste their time hacking bitcoin with it. There's evidently far more important things worth hacking at that point, which ironically would affect Bitcoin too but would make the event non-special, essentially not relevant enough that people need to panic as they do today.
That said, it's to be expected that quantum resistance will be built alongside the advancements of these supercomputers.
But in a scenario where there aren't available fixes that could be implemented, quantum computers will probably be war machines not tools concerned with hacking Bitcoin — except of course, if doing so would help facilitate the war.