Quantum Computing Is Already Hitting Bitcoin—Here’s How

Quantum computing’s threat to Bitcoin is often dismissed as distant, but look closely, and you may realize the impact may already be starting to show.

Recent research and institutional moves suggest the clock may be ticking faster than expected.

Quantum Computing Is Already Hitting Bitcoin—But Not How You Expect

Bitcoin’s recent underperformance against gold is drawing renewed scrutiny from institutional investors. However, it is not due to traditional market forces, but rather to quantum computing (QC) risks that could one day compromise its cryptography.

Strategists are now treating these threats as more than theoretical, reshaping portfolio allocations and igniting debate over Bitcoin’s long-term security.

BeInCrypto reported Jefferies strategist Christopher Wood removed a 10% Bitcoin position from his flagship “Greed & Fear” model portfolio, reallocating to physical gold and mining equities.

Wood cited concerns that quantum computing could break Bitcoin’s Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) keys, undermining its store-of-value thesis.

“Financial advisors read this kind of research and keep client allocations low or zero because quantum computing is an existential threat. It’s going to be a yoke around BTC’s neck until this gets fixed,” wrote batsoupyum, a popular user on X.

Research supports this caution, with a 2025 Chaincode Labs study estimating that 20–50% of circulating Bitcoin addresses are vulnerable to future quantum attacks due to reused public keys. Roughly 6.26 million BTC, valued between $650 billion and $750 billion, could be exposed.

Meanwhile, the Projection Calculator chart reflects this looming risk, showing exponential growth in quantum hardware capability over time.

As the qubit count of quantum machines accelerates, particularly following Google’s 2025 milestones, the potential for cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQCs) becomes more plausible.

Bitcoin’s decentralized structure amplifies the challenge. Unlike traditional banks, which can mandate quantum-safe upgrades through centralized authority, Bitcoin must coordinate changes across a distributed network.

There is no risk committee, no mandate, and no single entity capable of enforcing immediate action.

“I used to wave away quantum computing (QC) risks to Bitcoin as far-fetched. I don’t anymore. The usual pushback goes like this: QC hasn’t been a threat for years, and if it is, then the whole financial system is in trouble anyway… [Bitcoin] can technically upgrade. But doing so requires slow, messy coordination across a decentralized network. No one can say, ‘we’re switching now,’” Jamie Coutts noted.

Quantum Computing Risk Casts a Growing Shadow Over Bitcoin’s Institutional Appeal

The market has begun reflecting these concerns. Bitcoin’s YTD underperformance against gold is down 6.5% in 2026, while gold surged 55%. The BTC/gold ratio at 19.26 in January 2026 aligns with advisors’ caution.

Institutions are diverging in their responses. While Wood trimmed exposure, Harvard reportedly increased its Bitcoin allocation by almost 240%.

Similarly, Morgan Stanley started advising its wealth management clients to allocate up to 4% of their portfolios to digital assets. In the same way, Bank of America allows allocations of between 1% and 4%.

This demonstrates that support is not disappearing but is becoming more dispersed based on differing risk assessments.

Still, some say quantum risk is low-probability but high-impact. David Duong of Coinbase points to two major threats: quantum computers breaking ECDSA keys and targeting SHA-256, which underpins Bitcoin’s proof-of-work system.

Vulnerable addresses include legacy Pay-to-Public-Key scripts, certain multisignature wallets, and exposed Taproot setups.

Address hygiene, avoiding reused addresses, and moving coins to quantum-resistant addresses, is considered a key mitigation strategy.

Post-quantum cryptography standards finalized by NIST in 2024 provide a roadmap for future protection. However, adoption of Bitcoin remains complex.

Charles Hoskinson of Cardano warns that premature adoption could severely reduce efficiency. Meanwhile, DARPA’s Quantum Blockchain Initiative suggests meaningful threats may emerge in the 2030s.

Yet, the rapid advancement illustrated in the projection chart suggests that the timeline could accelerate, particularly if AI integration compresses quantum development.

The quantum computing question has moved from theory to tangible portfolio impact. Bitcoin’s underperformance is not just a reflection of market cycles. Rather, it reflects the creeping weight of existential risk, shaping how institutions allocate capital and forcing the network to confront a technical challenge unlike any it has faced before.

Until Bitcoin’s decentralized system can fully coordinate a quantum-resistant upgrade, the “yoke” around BTC’s neck remains real.