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

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

NEAR Returns to AI Origins: From Payroll Struggles to Blockchain, Now Focusing on AI Agents and Privacy NEAR Protocol's journey began not with grand blockchain ambitions, but from a practical hurdle: its AI startup founders, including Transformer paper co-author Illia Polosukhin, couldn't efficiently pay international developers in 2017. This led them to pivot and build a high-performance, scalable blockchain. After years navigating various crypto narratives like sharding and cross-chain interoperability, NEAR is now leveraging its AI roots to re-enter the AI arena. A key driver is its "NEAR Intents" layer, which abstracts complex cross-chain transactions. Users simply state their goal (e.g., swap BTC for ETH), and a solver network finds the optimal route. This system has processed over $20B in cross-chain volume, generating significant fee revenue. A major growth area is private transactions via "Confidential Intents/Swaps," which hide trade details until settlement to protect against MEV and front-running. Remarkably, private swaps recently accounted for over 40% of NEAR's transaction volume, highlighting strong demand but also potential regulatory scrutiny. With its AI-founder pedigree, NEAR is positioning itself at the intersection of blockchain, AI agents, and privacy, aiming to become infrastructure for the emerging agent economy while navigating the challenges of its rapid adoption.

marsbit1h ago

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

marsbit1h ago

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

In recent discussions, Vitalik Buterin has frequently emphasized the concept of "CROPS," a framework defining core values for Ethereum's development. CROPS stands for Censorship Resistance, Capture Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security. Initially outlined in the Ethereum Foundation's "EF Mandate," it represents a commitment to user sovereignty, ensuring that the network resists external control, remains open, protects privacy, and prioritizes security. The relevance of CROPS extends beyond Ethereum's foundational principles, becoming crucial in the context of AI integration. As AI agents begin handling wallet operations and automated transactions, the risk increases that users may cede control over their digital assets, privacy, and intentions to centralized AI service providers. A "CROPS AI" would therefore emphasize local execution where possible, privacy-preserving remote model calls (e.g., using zero-knowledge proofs), and transparent, verifiable processes to maintain user agency. Vitalik highlights a significant convergence between "CROPS Ethereum access layer" and "CROPS AI." Both address the same fundamental challenge: how users can access powerful services—be it blockchain data via RPCs or AI models—without exposing sensitive information or relinquishing ultimate control. This intersection points toward a future digital entry point that is more private, secure, and user-controlled. Ultimately, CROPS is not merely an abstract ideal but a practical guidepost. It steers development—from protocol resilience and wallet design to AI agent safety—towards a future where users retain self-sovereignty even as digital systems grow more complex and powerful. In an era of accelerating AI adoption, these "slow variables" of censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security may define Ethereum's enduring value.

marsbit1h ago

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

marsbit1h ago

Zcash Bug Could Have Minted Unlimited ZEC Undetected

A critical vulnerability in Zcash's Orchard shielded pool, discovered by researcher Taylor Hornby on May 29, 2026, could have allowed an attacker to create an unlimited amount of undetectable counterfeit ZEC. The flaw, involving an under-constrained element in the Orchard circuit, existed from the pool's 2022 activation until an emergency fix was deployed by June 2, 2026. Hornby identified the bug using AI-assisted auditing tools and confirmed its exploitability in a test environment. Due to Orchard's privacy features, which hide transaction amounts and history, there is no cryptographic way to prove whether the vulnerability was exploited before the fix. While Shielded Labs assesses prior exploitation as unlikely, this uncertainty has sparked a debate on proving supply integrity in privacy-preserving systems. In response, Shielded Labs and other developers are exploring a network upgrade, potentially involving a new shielded pool and formal verification of the circuit rules to prevent future vulnerabilities and allow verification of the ZEC supply's integrity. ZEC's price fell nearly 45% following the disclosure.

bitcoinist2h ago

Zcash Bug Could Have Minted Unlimited ZEC Undetected

bitcoinist2h ago

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbit3h ago

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbit3h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbit3h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbit3h 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

Hot Categoriesright-arrow

Hot Tagsright-arrow