Bitcoin Braces For Quantum Shock — Inside Two Radical New Rescue Plans

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-04-10Last updated on 2026-04-10

Abstract

The Bitcoin community is actively developing solutions to counter the future threat of quantum computers capable of breaking its current cryptography (ECDSA/Schnorr). Two primary proposals have emerged. The first, from Olaoluwa Osuntokun and Tim Ruffing, involves a "Taproot kill-switch" combined with a zk-STARK proof. This method would let users prove ownership of their coins from a vulnerable Taproot address without revealing their private keys, providing an escape hatch if a quantum-defense soft fork disables normal key-based spending. The second proposal, from Avihu Mordechai Levy, is called Quantum Safe Bitcoin (QSB). It uses Lamport-style one-time signatures and a new RIPEMD-160-based proof-of-work puzzle to make individual transactions quantum-safe today, without any changes to Bitcoin's base protocol. However, it is currently expensive and inefficient, costing hundreds of dollars per transaction. The debate has shifted from whether quantum is a threat to how to manage the migration. The community is split between solutions that aim to rescue the entire UTXO set and those who believe non-migrated coins should expire to preserve Bitcoin's monetary integrity.

Multiple devs and founders have been talking publicly about concrete post‐quantum paths for Bitcoin. Two different proposals have caught the crypto world’s attention.

Bitcoin’s Net-Watchers Start Building Their Blackwall

The ticking clock marking 2029 as the possible “deadline” for quantum computers to be able to break Bitcoin and Ethereum’s cryptography has made devs roll up their sleaves and get to work.

The recent spike of the Bitcoin quantum-panic or “quantum FUD” (fear, uncertainty and doubt) has moved on from the initial chaos that ensued following Google’s “doomsday” whitepaper to a race against an enemy that doesn’t yet exist. In the past days, two Bitcoin devs landed at different proposals aimed to protect Bitcoin from the future threat of quantum attacks.

One of them consists in a “Taproot kill‐switch + zk‐proof recovery” path for existing UTXOs (Unspent Transaction Outputs). The other is a QSB (Quantum Safe Bitcoin), a transaction‐level construction that makes individual spends quantum‐safe today without any soft fork (rule changes that stay compatible with old software).

Both approaches assume Shor‐style quantum computers (quantum computers based on Shor’s algorithm) will nuke the math behind Bitcoin’s current signatures (ECDSA/Schnorr), but they differ on how much of Bitcoin needs to change: consensus rules vs user‐level tooling.

Let’s examine both proposals closely.

Solution #1

The first solution comes from Olaoluwa Osuntokun, co‐founder and CTO of Lightning Labs (the main company building the Lightning Network implementation) and Tim Ruffing, co‐author and contributor on Schnorr/Taproot, multisignature schemes like MuSig2 and a maintainer of Bitcoin’s core elliptic‐curve library.

On a post made on the social media X on April 8, Osuntokun resurfaced Ruffing’s July 2025 whitepaper on Bitcoin’s post-quantum security in order to propose a solution for one of the problems presented in the paper: “to create a variant of seed-lifting that doesn’t reveal the wallet’s master secret”. He called this “zk-STARK proof”.

In plain language, Osuntokun’s tool creates a special cryptographic proof (the zk‐STARK) that lets you prove you really have the original wallet secret behind a given Taproot address, and that you used the standard wallet rules to get from that secret to this address. They crucial aspect of the zk-STARK proof is that it does this without ever revealing the secret itself, or any private keys, to anyone.

If, in the future, Bitcoin does a quantum‐defense soft fork that disables normal key‐based spends, many BIP‐86 Taproot wallets could be stuck and unable to move coins. With this proof, those users get an extra “escape hatch”: they can prove ownership of their Taproot coins via the seed‐derivation proof and move funds in a new, quantum‐safe way, even though the old key‐spend path is turned off.

He discussed all the technicalities behind this on the Bitcoin dev mailing list.

The solution has found acceptance, and it’s been generally received very well in the crypto community.

Solution #2

The second, and more polemic solution, comes from Avihu Mordechai Levy, a cryptography engineer at StarkWare who works on zero‐knowledge proofs and STARKs. His whitepaper, published yesterday, shows how to make individual Bitcoin transactions quantum‐safe today, using Lamport‐style one‐time signatures plus a “hash‐to‐signature” proof‐of‐work puzzle, with zero changes to Bitcoin’s base protocol.

QSB replaces the old signature‐size PoW (which quantum attacks could completely break by finding tiny ECDSA r‐values) with a RIPEMD‐160‐based puzzle that only relies on hash pre‐image resistance, which is merely weakened, not destroyed, by Grover’s algorithm (quantum tech).

Again in plain language, what QSB does is it throws away the old “make the signature tiny” proof‐of‐work trick, because a strong quantum computer could cheat that by exploiting the elliptic‐curve math. Instead, QSB uses a new puzzle built on the RIPEMD‐160 hash function. Breaking a hash like that is extremely hard, even with a quantum computer.

QSB fits in legacy script limits and gives around 118‐bit post‐quantum pre‐image security. However, it costs hundreds of dollars in off‐chain GPU work per transaction and requires non‐standard bare scripts mined via private relay services. This is why many are calling QSB a “last resort” or even a “whale-grade band-aid”.

A Philosophical Split

The community is no longer arguing if quantum breaks ECDSA/Schnorr, but how to stage an orderly migration. Let’s remember that the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto himself, assured in 2010 that a gradual transition to post-quantum, stronger technology, was possible for Bitcoin.

A post from Satoshi Nakamoto regarding the quantum threat for Bitcoin. Source: Bitcoin Magazine on X.

Taproot‐based recovery tries to protect the entire UTXO set with minimal value destruction, whereas some prominent voices still argue non‐migrated coins should simply expire rather than be “rescue” in weird ways, to preserve Bitcoin’s monetary story.

At the moment of writing, BTC trades for the high $71ks on the daily chart. Source: BTCUSD on Tradingview.

Cover image from Perplexity. BTCUSD chart from Tradingview.

Related Questions

QWhat is the main threat that Bitcoin developers are preparing for with these new proposals?

ABitcoin developers are preparing for the threat of quantum computers, specifically Shor-style quantum computers that could break Bitcoin's current ECDSA/Schnorr signature cryptography, potentially by 2029.

QWho proposed the first solution involving a 'zk-STARK proof' and what is its primary function?

AThe first solution was proposed by Olaoluwa Osuntokun of Lightning Labs and Tim Ruffing. Its primary function is to create a zk-STARK proof that allows users to prove ownership of their Taproot coins without revealing their private keys, providing an 'escape hatch' to move funds if a quantum-defense soft fork disables normal key-based spends.

QWhat does the QSB (Quantum Safe Bitcoin) solution replace to achieve quantum safety, and what is a major drawback of this approach?

AThe QSB solution replaces the old signature-size proof-of-work with a new RIPEMD-160-based hash pre-image puzzle. A major drawback is that it is extremely inefficient, costing hundreds of dollars in off-chain GPU work per transaction and requiring non-standard bare scripts mined via private relay services.

QAccording to the article, what did Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto say about the quantum threat in 2010?

AIn 2010, Satoshi Nakamoto assured that a gradual transition to post-quantum, stronger technology was possible for Bitcoin.

QWhat is the key philosophical difference between the two proposed solutions for Bitcoin's quantum resistance?

AThe key philosophical difference is in how much of Bitcoin needs to change. The Taproot-based recovery solution aims to protect the entire UTXO set with minimal value destruction through a potential soft fork (consensus rule changes), while the QSB solution is a transaction-level construction that makes individual spends quantum-safe today without any changes to Bitcoin's base protocol (user-level tooling).

Related Reads

Xpeng and NIO Compete on Computing Power, Li Auto Shifts Architecture

On June 15, 2026, Li Auto unveiled details of its self-developed chip, Mahe M100, for its new L9 Livis model. CTO Xie Yan stated the goal was not just a faster chip, but a fundamentally different one, targeting the chip architecture itself. While competitors like NIO, Xpeng, and Huawei highlight TOPS (computing power) figures for their self-developed chips, Li Auto’s Mahe M100 focuses on redesigning the underlying architecture. It employs a "dynamic data flow architecture" to address memory bandwidth bottlenecks in large model inference, claiming up to 3x the effective computing power of Nvidia's Thor U for its specific workloads and a 40% reduction in latency. The chip's design was peer-reviewed and accepted at ISCA 2026. However, this performance is highly optimized for Li Auto's own VLA2.1 algorithm, meaning it may not generalize as well to other tasks. Li Auto aims to achieve full-stack in-house development with Mahe M100, covering chip, compiler, OS, AI algorithms, and domain controller—a level of vertical integration few competitors match. Beyond the chip, CEO Li Xiang introduced a new strategic narrative: the "embodied intelligent vehicle," defined as an integration of an EV, a professional driver, an AI computer, and a life assistant. This shifts competition from features like large screens to systemic AI capabilities. A key commitment was that Li Auto's Mahe VLA autonomous driving model will match Tesla's FSD V14 by Q4 2026, with specific OTA milestones set for July, September, and December. Financially, Li Auto faces pressure with declining revenue and vehicle gross margins since Q4 2025, while maintaining high R&D investment (approx. ¥12B in 2026, 50% AI-related). Its 2026 sales target is 550,000 vehicles, up from 406,000 in 2025. The new L9 Livis garnered over 10,000 pre-orders in two weeks. The effectiveness of these strategic moves—new products, OTAs, and the novel chip architecture—will begin to show in Q3 2026 financial results, with the year-end FSD V14 benchmark being the ultimate test.

marsbit32m ago

Xpeng and NIO Compete on Computing Power, Li Auto Shifts Architecture

marsbit32m ago

The Year of AI Applications: Saying 'Yes' While Ignoring Risks? A Comprehensive Open Source Log of Software Development's Journey

The Year of AI Applications: Blindly Saying "Yes" While Ignoring Risks? A Software Development Log Goes Fully Open Source. AI-generated code harbors risks hidden within seemingly correct programs, potentially leading to data leaks or asset loss. The open-source project "Narwhal AI Code Risks," from Peking University's Narwhal-Lab, compiles real-world cases, early warning signs, and typical risk pathways. Its goal is to help developers identify potential hazards early and avoid repeating past mistakes. In 2026, code is generated faster than ever but deployed with less scrutiny. The danger often lies not in glaring errors, but in code that appears normal—syntactically correct, passing all checks—yet introduces subtle but critical flaws like non-existent dependencies, excessive permissions, or exposed databases. A stark example is the Moonwell cbETH oracle incident. A configuration file error, where a cryptocurrency price was set to ~$1.12 instead of ~$2,200, slipped through 28 checks and a pull request signed by both AI (Claude, Copilot) and human developers. This "semantic deviation" resulted in a loss of $1.78 million. The risk is that AI can produce functionally valid code that is semantically wrong for the business context. As AI moves beyond simple code completion to modifying configurations, installing dependencies, and operating via autonomous agents, it traverses longer, less traceable paths within software engineering, blurring traditional boundaries and oversight points. The Narwhal AI Code Risks project structures information into three layers: `/cases` for documented real-world incidents, `/inferred` for early warning signals, and `/scenarios` for clear, generalized risk patterns not yet tied to specific events. This aims to create a lasting, public record to prevent collective amnesia about past AI-coding pitfalls. Risks are categorized into seven areas: Software Supply Chain (e.g., recommending fake packages), Code-Level Vulnerabilities (e.g., reintroducing path traversal bugs), Cloud & Infrastructure Misconfiguration (e.g., overly permissive settings), Agent Risks (from autonomous tool execution), Vertical Domain Risks (e.g., in finance, healthcare), Intellectual Property & Compliance issues, and Human Factors (like over-reliance on AI output). The project's core value is transforming isolated incidents into reusable knowledge—a foundational resource for developers to spot similar issues, for security researchers to build upon, for toolmakers to create detection rules, and for the community to contribute new findings. As AI integration accelerates, this open-source "logbook" serves as a crucial navigational aid, charting past errors to help future projects steer clear of the same traps.

marsbit33m ago

The Year of AI Applications: Saying 'Yes' While Ignoring Risks? A Comprehensive Open Source Log of Software Development's Journey

marsbit33m ago

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

SpaceX's trillion-dollar valuation is built on its three core businesses: Starlink (profitable, 60% of revenue), rockets (driving down launch costs), and AI (a major investment area). This creates a financial cycle: Starlink funds rocket development, which enables low-cost launches for AI hardware, generating future revenue. This cycle fuels annual capital expenditures of tens of billions, flowing to a vast supply chain. Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability. The first group includes irreplaceable players like NVIDIA (GPU/CUDA ecosystem), Eutelsat (critical radio spectrum), Filtronic (specialized amplifiers), Materion (strategic beryllium), and STMicroelectronics (antenna chips). The second group consists of hard-to-replace suppliers due to high switching costs, such as Honeywell (flight control), Carpenter Technology (specialty alloys), Hexcel (carbon fiber), Broadcom (data exchange), and Linde (industrial gases). The third group comprises high-volume, cost-critical suppliers for mass-produced items like Starlink terminals. Key names include Wistron NeWeb (primary manufacturer) and several A-share companies like Shenzhen Sunway (connectors), Pies New Materials (forgings), Western Superconducting (alloys), and Yingliu (castings). Other niche players include Trimble (timing), Astronics (power distribution), and CTS (thermal management). The article argues that investing in these suppliers, rather than SpaceX stock directly, offers an alternative opportunity. The rationale is threefold: procurement is just beginning to scale, SpaceX's IPO brings new transparency to its supply chain, and the situation mirrors early stages of past "super terminal" ecosystems like Apple or Tesla. While risks exist (commodity cycles, geopolitical factors, technology shifts), the core thesis is that SpaceX's massive, ongoing procurement will translate into reliable revenue for its key suppliers, regardless of its own stock price volatility.

marsbit1h ago

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

marsbit1h ago

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

**Title: The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who Benefits from Musk's Annual $100 Billion Capital Expenditure?** This article argues that investors seeking to benefit from SpaceX's growth might find greater opportunities in its supply chain rather than directly investing in the company itself, drawing parallels to historical successes with Apple, Tesla, and NVIDIA suppliers. **SpaceX's Business Model & Cash Flow:** SpaceX generates revenue from three main areas: 1. **Starlink:** Its profitable core, earning $11.3B in 2023 (60% of revenue), funding other ventures. 2. **Rockets (Falcon/Starship):** Requires $3B+ in annual R&D but achieves the world's lowest launch costs. 3. **AI:** Currently unprofitable (-$6B+ in 2023), investing heavily in ground-based supercomputers (220,000 GPUs) and future orbital data centers. The cycle is: Starlink profits → fund cheaper rockets → low-cost launches deploy AI hardware → AI compute rentals generate future revenue. This cycle drives annual procurement spending of tens of billions of dollars. **The Supply Chain Beneficiaries:** Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability: **1. Nearly Irreplaceable (High Barriers to Entry):** * **NVIDIA:** Powers the Colossus supercomputer; its CUDA ecosystem creates immense switching costs. * **Eutelsat (SATS):** Controls critical radio spectrum for satellite communications; holds a ~3% stake in SpaceX. * **Filtronic (FTC):** Supplies millimeter-wave signal amplifiers for Starlink satellites; SpaceX constitutes 83% of its revenue. * **Materion (MTRN):** Global leader in beryllium production, a strategic material used in Starship structures. * **STMicroelectronics (STM):** Supplies phased-array antenna chips for Starlink satellites. **2. Replaceable, but Switching Cost is Prohibitively High:** * **Honeywell (HON):** Provides flight control and inertial navigation systems with decades of certification. * **Carpenter Technology (CRS):** Manufactures ultra-pure specialty steel alloys for Raptor engines. * **Hexcel (HXL):** Supplies custom carbon fiber composites developed over a decade with SpaceX. * **Broadcom (AVGO):** Manages high-speed data switching. * **Linde Group:** Supplies industrial gases (liquid oxygen/nitrogen) from facilities built near SpaceX launch sites. **3. High-Volume, Cost-Critical Manufacturing:** Focuses on mass-producing components like Starlink user terminals (target: 30 million units). * **Key Players:** Wistron NeWeb (6285, primary terminal manufacturer), several Chinese A-share companies (e.g., Sunway Communication, PAX New Materials, Western Metal Materials, Yingliu Co.), and smaller US firms like Trimble (TRMB, timing systems). **Why Now?** Three factors make the supply chain opportunity timely: 1. **Volume Ramp-Up:** SpaceX plans 100 launches in 2026, aims for 30 million Starlink terminals, and will deploy AI data centers, meaning procurement will accelerate. 2. **Increased Transparency:** The IPO provides public financial data, allowing investors to track supplier order growth. 3. **Historical Precedent:** The current phase is likened to Tesla's early mass-production stage (circa 2018), suggesting a long growth runway for suppliers. **Conclusion:** The article posits that while investing in SpaceX stock is betting on Elon Musk's ambitious vision at a high valuation, investing in its established suppliers is a bet on the tangible, recurring revenue from its massive procurement budget, which is largely decoupled from day-to-day stock price volatility.

链捕手1h ago

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

链捕手1h ago

World Cup Upset! Polymarket User Loses Nearly $1 Million

A prediction market trader lost nearly $1 million after underdog Cape Verde held soccer powerhouse Spain to a 0-0 draw in their World Cup group stage match. On Polymarket, a user named "betoor619" had built a roughly $1.1 million position when Spain's implied win probability was around 92%, a low-risk, low-return strategy that backfired spectacularly. The result defied models like Goldman Sachs', which gave Spain a 25% championship probability. Cape Verde's 40-year-old goalkeeper, Vozinha, was the hero with seven key saves. The event highlights the growing scale of crypto-based prediction markets like Polymarket, where total trading volume for this single match reached $64 million.

marsbit1h ago

World Cup Upset! Polymarket User Loses Nearly $1 Million

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

What is $BITCOIN

DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): A Comprehensive Analysis Introduction to DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a blockchain-based project operating on the Solana network, which aims to combine the characteristics of traditional precious metals with the innovation of decentralized technologies. While it shares a name with Bitcoin, often referred to as “digital gold” due to its perception as a store of value, DIGITAL GOLD is a separate token designed to create a unique ecosystem within the Web3 landscape. Its goal is to position itself as a viable alternative digital asset, although specifics regarding its applications and functionalities are still developing. What is DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a cryptocurrency token explicitly designed for use on the Solana blockchain. In contrast to Bitcoin, which provides a widely recognized value storage role, this token appears to focus on broader applications and characteristics. Notable aspects include: Blockchain Infrastructure: The token is built on the Solana blockchain, known for its capacity to handle high-speed and low-cost transactions. Supply Dynamics: DIGITAL GOLD has a maximum supply capped at 100 quadrillion tokens (100P $BITCOIN), although details regarding its circulating supply are currently undisclosed. Utility: While precise functionalities are not explicitly outlined, there are indications that the token could be utilized for various applications, potentially involving decentralized applications (dApps) or asset tokenization strategies. Who is the Creator of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? At present, the identity of the creators and development team behind DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) remains unknown. This situation is typical among many innovative projects within the blockchain space, particularly those aligning with decentralized finance and meme coin phenomena. While such anonymity may foster a community-driven culture, it intensifies concerns about governance and accountability. Who are the Investors of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? The available information indicates that DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) does not have any known institutional backers or prominent venture capital investments. The project seems to operate on a peer-to-peer model focused on community support and adoption rather than traditional funding routes. Its activity and liquidity are primarily situated on decentralized exchanges (DEXs), such as PumpSwap, rather than established centralized trading platforms, further highlighting its grassroots approach. How DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) Works The operational mechanics of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) can be elaborated on based on its blockchain design and network attributes: Consensus Mechanism: By leveraging Solana’s unique proof-of-history (PoH) combined with a proof-of-stake (PoS) model, the project ensures efficient transaction validation contributing to the network's high performance. Tokenomics: While specific deflationary mechanisms have not been extensively detailed, the vast maximum token supply implies that it may cater to microtransactions or niche use cases that are still to be defined. Interoperability: There exists the potential for integration with Solana’s broader ecosystem, including various decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. However, the details regarding specific integrations remain unspecified. Timeline of Key Events Here is a timeline that highlights significant milestones concerning DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): 2023: The initial deployment of the token occurs on the Solana blockchain, marked by its contract address. 2024: DIGITAL GOLD gains visibility as it becomes available for trading on decentralized exchanges like PumpSwap, allowing users to trade it against SOL. 2025: The project witnesses sporadic trading activity and potential interest in community-led engagements, although no noteworthy partnerships or technical advancements have been documented as of yet. Critical Analysis Strengths Scalability: The underlying Solana infrastructure supports high transaction volumes, which could enhance the utility of $BITCOIN in various transaction scenarios. Accessibility: The potential low trading price per token could attract retail investors, facilitating wider participation due to fractional ownership opportunities. Risks Lack of Transparency: The absence of publicly known backers, developers, or an audit process may yield skepticism regarding the project's sustainability and trustworthiness. Market Volatility: The trading activity is heavily reliant on speculative behavior, which can result in significant price volatility and uncertainty for investors. Conclusion DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) emerges as an intriguing yet ambiguous project within the rapidly evolving Solana ecosystem. While it attempts to leverage the “digital gold” narrative, its departure from Bitcoin's established role as a store of value underscores the need for a clearer differentiation of its intended utility and governance structure. Future acceptance and adoption will likely depend on addressing the current opacity and defining its operational and economic strategies more explicitly. Note: This report encompasses synthesised information available as of October 2023, and developments may have transpired beyond the research period.

368 Total ViewsPublished 2025.05.13Updated 2025.05.13

What is $BITCOIN

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of BTC (BTC) are presented below.

活动图片

Top Questions