SKN | Only 10,000 Bitcoin Face Credible Quantum Risk, CoinShares Says

Key Points

• CoinShares says only about 10,230 bitcoin are realistically vulnerable to a quantum attack due to exposed public keys.

• The vast majority of bitcoin would take centuries to crack, even under extremely optimistic quantum computing assumptions.

• While the community is divided on whether to upgrade now, CoinShares argues Bitcoin is far from “dangerous territory.”

Fears that quantum computing could soon upend Bitcoin’s security model are being overstated, according to digital asset manager CoinShares, which argues that only a small fraction of coins are realistically vulnerable  and even fewer would be economically worth attacking.

In a research note published Friday, CoinShares’ bitcoin research lead Christopher Bendiksen said just 10,230 bitcoin sit in wallet addresses with publicly exposed cryptographic keys that could, in theory, be targeted by a sufficiently advanced quantum computer. That figure represents a tiny slice of the roughly 1.63 million bitcoin currently held in unspent transaction output (UTXO) wallets.

At current market prices, the potentially vulnerable coins are worth about $719 million — a meaningful sum in absolute terms, but one that Bendiksen said would barely register as unusual trading volume in modern crypto markets.

Where the Quantum Risk Actually Sits

According to CoinShares’ breakdown, just over 7,000 bitcoin are held in wallets containing between 100 and 1,000 BTC, while approximately 3,230 BTC sit in larger wallets holding between 1,000 and 10,000 BTC. These addresses share a common trait: they have previously spent bitcoin, making their public keys visible on the blockchain and, in theory, susceptible to cryptographic attacks.

By contrast, the remaining roughly 1.62 million bitcoin are distributed across wallets holding under 100 BTC each. Bendiksen said cracking those addresses would be effectively impossible within any realistic timeframe. Even under what he described as “the most outlandishly optimistic scenario of technological progression in quantum computing,” each wallet would take centuries to compromise.

Many of the exposed UTXOs date back to Bitcoin’s earliest years, often referred to as the Satoshi era, when wallet practices were less conservative and cryptographic assumptions less well understood.

What Quantum Computers Can  and Can’t  Do

The theoretical concern centers on quantum algorithms such as Shor’s, which could break Bitcoin’s elliptic-curve digital signatures, and Grover’s, which could weaken the Secure Hash Algorithm 256-bit (SHA-256). In principle, such breakthroughs could allow attackers to derive private keys from public ones.

However, Bendiksen stressed that even a successful quantum attack would not undermine Bitcoin’s core monetary rules. Quantum computers could not alter the 21 million supply cap, bypass proof-of-work, or rewrite the blockchain’s transaction history — features that define Bitcoin’s economic model.

“Quantum computing does not break Bitcoin as a system,” Bendiksen argued, framing the threat as localized and manageable rather than systemic.

Divided Views Within the Bitcoin Community

Quantum fears have become a recurring source of FUD in recent months, especially as rapid advances in AI and computing fuel speculation about cryptographic breakthroughs. Bitcoin currently secures roughly $1.4 trillion in value, amplifying concerns that any vulnerability could have outsized consequences.

Some prominent Bitcoin advocates believe those fears are premature. Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor and Adam Back, the CEO of Blockstream, have both argued that practical quantum threats are decades away. Bendiksen aligns with that camp, noting that breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography would require millions of fault-tolerant qubits — far beyond the roughly 105 qubits achieved by Google’s latest quantum computer.

Others are less sanguine. Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, has described quantum computing as a potential existential threat, arguing that Bitcoin should proactively adopt quantum-resistant upgrades. He has suggested that implementing such protections could ultimately reprice bitcoin higher by removing a lingering tail risk.

Blockstream researcher Jonas Nick has pointed to post-quantum signature schemes as one possible path forward, should the network decide to harden its defenses.

A Risk, But Not an Emergency

For now, CoinShares’ assessment suggests that quantum computing remains a long-term consideration rather than an imminent market threat. The number of coins theoretically at risk is small, the technical hurdles remain enormous, and Bitcoin’s core economic rules are unaffected by cryptographic advances.

The debate, however, is unlikely to fade. As computing power improves and markets grow more sensitive to systemic risks, pressure will likely build for clearer plans around quantum resistance  even if the danger remains distant.