Bitcoin Faces A New Quantum Era As Giant Computing Facility Breaks Ground

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-03-07Last updated on 2026-03-07

Abstract

CoinShares estimates that only around 10,230 Bitcoin (worth approximately $730 million) are currently vulnerable to a quantum computing attack, representing a small fraction of circulating supply. This assessment comes as PsiQuantum constructs a large-scale quantum computing facility in Chicago, designed to operate a 1 million-qubit machine—theoretically capable of breaking Bitcoin’s encryption. However, experts emphasize that raw qubit count alone is insufficient; error rates and stability are critical. A genuine quantum threat to Bitcoin is still considered at least a decade away. Meanwhile, developers are exploring post-quantum cryptographic solutions, though implementation could take years. PsiQuantum has stated it does not intend to target Bitcoin.

Just over 10,000 Bitcoin — out of nearly 20 million in circulation — sits in wallets actually exposed to a quantum attack.

That number comes from CoinShares, a crypto asset management firm, which found in February that only 10,230 coins are both vulnerable to quantum computing and tied to wallet addresses with publicly visible cryptographic keys.

At current prices, that amounts to close to $730 million — a sum the firm described as resembling a routine trade, not a market crisis.

A Steel Frame Takes Shape In Chicago

The finding lands at an awkward moment. This week, PsiQuantum co-founder Peter Shadbolt posted a photo to X showing the Chicago construction site where his company is building what it calls the world’s first commercially useful quantum computer.

In six days, workers had erected 500 tons of steel. The structure will house a machine capable of running 1 million qubits — a unit of quantum computing power.

Scientists say that capacity is, in theory, sufficient to crack the type of encryption protecting Bitcoin wallets.

The company raised $1 billion for the project, announced in September, with chipmaker Nvidia as a key partner.

PsiQuantum says the facility is designed to support fault-tolerant quantum computing and serve as infrastructure for next-generation AI systems.

For context, the largest quantum computer currently operating at the California Institute of Technology runs on 6,100 qubits. A jump to 1 million represents a scale that has no precedent in the field.

What Would Actually Be At Risk

Bitcoin’s encryption relies on 256-bit cryptographic keys. A preprint paper published last month put the number of qubits needed to break 2048-bit keys at around 100,000 — suggesting that a 1 million-qubit machine could, mathematically, do the job.

But experts have long noted that raw qubit count is only part of the equation. Error rates and system stability matter just as much.

BTCUSD trading at $68,470 on the 24-hour chart: TradingView

Not all Bitcoin wallets face equal exposure. Coins held in addresses that have never made a transaction — known as unspent transaction outputs, or UTXOs — are considered most at risk, particularly those whose public keys have been exposed on the blockchain. Many of those wallets date back to Bitcoin’s earliest days.

Developers Are Already Working On A Fix

Bitcoin developers have been debating how to respond. One option on the table is a hard fork — a fundamental change to the network’s code — to introduce post-quantum cryptography.

A co-author of BIP-360, a proposal aimed at making Bitcoin quantum-resistant, said that the upgrade could take as long as seven years to fully implement.

PsiQuantum, for its part, has said it has no intention of using its technology to attack Bitcoin. Co-founder Terry Rudolph made that point publicly at a Bitcoin quantum summit last July.

Experts in the field say a genuine quantum threat to Bitcoin is still at least a decade away.

For now, construction continues in Chicago — 500 tons of steel and counting.

Featured image from Unsplash+/Alex Shuper, chart from TradingView

Related Questions

QAccording to CoinShares, how many Bitcoins are vulnerable to a quantum attack and why?

AAccording to CoinShares, 10,230 Bitcoins are vulnerable to a quantum attack because they are stored in wallet addresses with publicly visible cryptographic keys, making them susceptible to being cracked by a powerful quantum computer.

QWhat is the significance of the 1 million-qubit capacity of the quantum computer being built by PsiQuantum?

AA quantum computer with 1 million qubits is significant because scientists believe that, in theory, this level of computing power is sufficient to crack the 256-bit elliptic curve cryptography that secures Bitcoin wallets.

QWhat is the main factor, besides raw qubit count, that experts say is crucial for a quantum computer to break Bitcoin's encryption?

ABesides raw qubit count, experts note that low error rates and high system stability are equally crucial factors for a quantum computer to successfully break Bitcoin's encryption.

QWhich type of Bitcoin wallet is considered most at risk from a quantum computing attack?

ABitcoin wallets that are considered most at risk are those that have never made a transaction (unspent transaction outputs or UTXOs), particularly those whose public keys have already been exposed on the blockchain.

QWhat is one proposed solution to make Bitcoin resistant to quantum computing, and what is the estimated timeline for its implementation?

AOne proposed solution is a hard fork of the Bitcoin network to implement post-quantum cryptography. A co-author of the BIP-360 proposal estimated that such an upgrade could take as long as seven years to fully implement.

Related Reads

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

Editor's Note: As AI Agents become cheaper and easier to use, a new constraint emerges: the cost isn't in launching more Agents, but in the human attention required to manage, judge, and integrate their outputs. This hidden cost is called the "orchestration tax." The article argues that a developer's cognitive bandwidth is the key bottleneck—a serial, non-parallelizable resource akin to a Global Interpreter Lock (GIL). While many Agents can run concurrently, their results ultimately require human judgment for review, conflict resolution, and final integration. Therefore, more Agents don't automatically mean higher productivity; they can simply create longer queues, lead to cognitive fatigue, and create the illusion of busyness without real output. The core solution is to design workflows around this scarce human attention. Key strategies include: scaling the number of Agents to match review capacity (not UI capacity), categorizing tasks (delegating independent ones, keeping complex judgment-heavy ones serial), batch reviewing results to minimize context-switching costs, automating verifiable checks to reserve human judgment for critical decisions, and protecting focused, uninterrupted thinking time. Ultimately, the critical skill is not launching many Agents, but architecting systems that respect the fundamental limit of human attention. Unpaid "orchestration tax" accumulates as both technical and cognitive debt, undermining system understanding and quality. True productivity comes from thoughtfully managing the single-threaded resource—your focus.

marsbit6m ago

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

marsbit6m ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbit6h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbit6h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手9h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手9h ago

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbit10h ago

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbit10h ago

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbit10h ago

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbit10h 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.

363 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