5 Years Left: Solana Co-Founder Urges Bitcoin Community To Brace For Quantum Threat

bitcoinist發佈於 2025-09-20更新於 2025-09-20

文章摘要

Bitcoin’s security may need an upgrade sooner than many expect, according to Anatoly Yakovenko, co-founder of Solana. Related Reading: China’s...

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

Bitcoin’s security may need an upgrade sooner than many expect, according to Anatoly Yakovenko, co-founder of Solana.

Speaking at the All-In Summit 2025, Yakovenko warned there is roughly a 50/50 chance of a major quantum-computing breakthrough within the next five years and urged the Bitcoin community to start shifting to quantum-resistant signatures now.

Quantum Risk On A Short Timeline

According to reports, Yakovenko argued that advances in quantum hardware — helped along by rapid progress in AI — could reach a point where current cryptography used by Bitcoin becomes vulnerable by about 2030.

He recommended migrating away from Bitcoin’s existing signature scheme, ECDSA, toward algorithms designed to resist quantum attacks.

Bitcoin Uses Signatures That Could Be Targeted

Bitcoin transactions rely on ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm) to prove ownership.

Based on technical warnings from many researchers, a powerful enough quantum computer running algorithms such as Shor’s could, in theory, break those signatures and expose private keys tied to addresses that have revealed their public keys.

That is the vulnerability Yakovenko highlighted.

Experts Offer Mixed Timelines

Other voices in crypto put the timeline farther out. Reports show Adam Back of Blockstream thinks quantum machines that can threaten Bitcoin are likely decades away — he has cited a figure near 20 years.

Some figures, like Samson Mow, suggest a longer window as well, while newer commentators warn the risk could arrive much sooner if breakthroughs accelerate.

The split in views reflects real uncertainty about when — not whether — quantum will matter for blockchains.

BTCUSD trading at $115,989 on the 24-hour chart: TradingView

What A Fix Would Mean In Practice

Moving Bitcoin to quantum-resistant signatures is possible, but it is not small work. Based on analysis across industry pieces, such a shift could require major protocol changes, widespread wallet updates, and careful rollout plans to avoid breaking existing addresses or exposing users during the transition.

Some proposals include one-time migration tools and new address types, but none is a simple flip of a switch.

On Action And Urgency

Based on reports, Yakovenko’s main point was urgency: begin testing and building a migration path now, not later.

He noted Bitcoin’s strengths but stressed that preparation would protect users and preserve trust if quantum capabilities arrive faster than many expect.

Industry coverage has already circulated his remarks, prompting renewed discussion across developer forums and research groups.

What Happens Next

For now, Bitcoin developers and node operators face a choice between steady, cautious research and faster, coordinated engineering to prepare for several possible futures.

Yakovenko’s estimate — a 50/50 chance in five years — is far from a consensus, but it has pushed the debate back into public view.

Featured image from Meta, chart from TradingView

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Christian, a journalist and editor with leadership roles in Philippine and Canadian media, is fueled by his love for writing and cryptocurrency. Off-screen, he's a cook and cinephile who's constantly intrigued by the size of the universe.

你可能也喜歡

您会惊讶地发现,WeChat 和 Telegram 在架构层面竟如此不同

微信与Telegram在架构层面有着根本性的差异,主要体现在数据存储、功能设计和生态开放度上。 **数据存储方式**:Telegram提供无限云端存储,所有消息历史在各设备间自动同步。微信则采用本地存储,消息在服务器交付后不保留,因此更换设备需通过特定功能迁移,且桌面版必须依赖手机在线确认才能登录。 **功能设计差异**:在频道讨论方面,Telegram为帖子自动关联评论区,实现一体化讨论。微信的公众号文章评论需经发布者审核才可显示,缺乏与文章直接关联的讨论系统,用户交流需跳转至聊天或小程序。文件传输上,Telegram支持最大2-4GB的文件,微信则限制为200MB,大文件需借助“文件传输助手”或第三方服务。 **开发与生态**:Telegram的Bot API完全开放免费,开发门槛低。微信小程序生态庞大(活跃数量超480万),但属于封闭系统,需经过审核、认证,甚至提供商业许可才能使用部分API,准入要求更高。 **支付整合**:微信支付深度融入中国日常生活,覆盖绝大多数线下场景及公共服务,替代了现金和银行应用。Telegram没有内置的法定货币支付系统,主要通过第三方机器人实现支付功能,尤其侧重加密货币,这反映了其去中心化理念,但在传统金融基础设施完善的地区,限制了其作为日常金融工具的应用。 **安全考量**:文章未深入讨论加密机制。Telegram提供端到端加密的私密聊天选项,而微信聊天信息不采用端到端加密。值得注意的是,微信将通讯与支付高度集成于单一界面,理论上扩大了潜在的攻击面。有数据显示,仅2025年初新加坡就记录了数百起涉及仿冒微信等支付平台员工的诈骗案件,损失巨大。这引出一个技术问题:当通讯与支付功能在同一个应用内结合得越紧密,聊天安全漏洞可能带来的代价就越高。 总结而言,两者代表了不同的平台哲学:微信构建了一个深度融入现实经济的封闭但高度集成的生态系统;而Telegram则围绕开放协议、灵活数据存储和低开发者门槛进行设计。这种架构选择决定了各自的目标用户和使用场景。

cryptonews.ru2 小時前

您会惊讶地发现,WeChat 和 Telegram 在架构层面竟如此不同

cryptonews.ru2 小時前

交易

現貨
活动图片