Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
So, there's an interesting report from CoinShares that actually eases many people's fears about quantum computing and Bitcoin. They say that concerns about an imminent quantum threat are actually greatly exaggerated.
The conclusion is quite simple but detailed: only about 8% of the total Bitcoin (—around 1.6 million BTC)—are in old P2PK addresses where the public key is visible on the blockchain. And of that amount, only about 10,200 BTC are concentrated enough that a theft could significantly shake the market. The rest? Spread across more than 32,000 UTXOs with an average of 50 BTC per piece.
What’s interesting from a technical perspective is this: to truly break Bitcoin's cryptography, a quantum computer about 100,000 times more powerful than the largest existing machine is needed. For comparison, Google’s Willow, which they mention, is only 105 qubits, while hacking Bitcoin keys is estimated to require millions of qubits. So the timeline is far off, at least a decade into the future according to their estimates.
This is an important point: the quantum computing threat is not an urgent crisis but a long-term engineering challenge. Quantum attackers can't just break into one big address and steal everything. They would have to crack one small address at a time, which is much slower, noisier, and less profitable.
CoinShares itself prefers a gradual transition to post-quantum signatures rather than panicking now. This aligns with what Bitcoin developers said last December—most see quantum computing as a distant issue, not an urgent problem. But there are critics who say the problem isn’t the timeline but the lack of visible preparation, especially since governments and tech companies have already started deploying quantum-resistant systems.
Proposals like BIP-360 do exist for gradual migration, but the gap between developers and institutional capital willing to commit to a clear plan still feels significant. The bottom line is, Bitcoin has time to adapt, but more structured preparations regarding quantum computing probably need to start more seriously now.