hodler

21 Apr 2026, 14:00

MIT Researcher Proposes New Path To Make Bitcoin Quantum-Safe

MIT Digital Currency Initiative director Neha Narula has laid out a proposed roadmap for making Bitcoin resilient to a future cryptographically relevant quantum computer, arguing the network should prioritize a practical, low-risk path that lets users secure their coins now rather than waiting for consensus on harder questions such as how to handle unmoved coins. In a post published April 20, Narula said Bitcoin does not need “100% of the answers immediately” before taking meaningful action. Instead, she argued for a staged approach: deploy a post-quantum-safe output type and signature scheme through a soft fork, coordinate wallet and application support around it, and push users toward migration well before any true quantum emergency arrives. Bitcoin Needs Low-Risk Quantum Defenses Now Her core thesis is straightforward. “We should make the low-harm, low-risk, high-benefit, safety-critical mitigations NOW, and save the high-harm, high-risk mitigations for LATER, when we know with more certainty a CRQC is close,” she wrote, using CRQC to refer to a cryptographically relevant quantum computer. The proposal Narula favors centers on P2MR, described in BIP 360 , combined with a new post-quantum signature opcode and cryptographic agility. In her framing, that combination would allow Bitcoin users to move funds into an output type that remains safe against a quantum attacker, provided they do not reveal a non-post-quantum public key through address reuse or similar behavior. “If this is done, it gives Bitcoin users the ability to move their coins to a safe output type immediately, having confidence their coins are safe even if a powerful CRQC appears, without worrying about future softforks,” she wrote. “The best candidate for this I have seen so far is P2MR (BIP 360) in conjunction with a new PQ signature opcode and cryptographic agility.” Narula’s case is not that this solves everything. It does not. She draws a clear distinction between protecting individual users who migrate early and protecting Bitcoin as a system if a large share of coins remains vulnerable. That unresolved portion, which she labels X, is central to the longer-term debate. If only a negligible amount of bitcoin remains exposed, she suggests the network could likely absorb the risk. If the number is large, the situation could become far more destabilizing. “At the very least I’d say it depends on exact numbers,” she wrote. “If only 0.0001% of coins are insecure, I think Bitcoin will be fine. If 20% of coins are insecure, I think things would probably get pretty chaotic if a CRQC would appear.” Still, Narula argues that uncertainty over X should not delay the first step. A migration path would generate real on-chain data about adoption and give Bitcoin time to reduce the vulnerable share before the network is forced into more contentious decisions. In her telling, the difficult debate over whether old, inactive or lost coins should eventually be frozen can wait. “Most importantly, we do not have to decide what to do with people who are unlikely to show up to do anything at all ( Satoshi’s coins ) right now in order to make progress,” she wrote. “Eventually, if a CRQC seems close, we will have to make a decision one way or the other… But resolving that conversation is not needed to make useful, meaningful progress.” Narula also pushed back on ideas she sees as distractions or inferior near-term solutions. She dismissed the notion that research proof-of-concept approaches, such as manually constructing post-quantum verification in script or relying on expensive escape-hatch mechanisms, should anchor Bitcoin’s main response. Those ideas may be technically possible, she said, but not operationally suitable for broad deployment. She also acknowledged the tradeoffs. P2MR would reduce one of Taproot’s efficient privacy properties by eliminating the key spend path, and it depends on wallets handling address reuse correctly. She flagged those as real downsides, but not enough to outweigh the benefit of giving users a way to protect funds without waiting for a second, more politically fraught soft fork. The roadmap Narula sketched leaves Bitcoin’s hardest governance questions unresolved. That is the point. Her argument is that the network should stop treating perfect alignment as a prerequisite for obvious preparation. At press time, Bitcoin traded at $75,802.

21 Apr 2026, 06:10

Crucial Defense: Ripple Unveils 4-Step Roadmap for XRP Ledger Quantum Resistance by 2028

BitcoinWorld Crucial Defense: Ripple Unveils 4-Step Roadmap for XRP Ledger Quantum Resistance by 2028 In a pivotal move for blockchain security, Ripple has announced a detailed, four-phase roadmap to fortify the XRP Ledger against the looming threat of quantum computing. The company aims to achieve full quantum resistance for its ecosystem by 2028, according to a report by CoinDesk. This strategic plan addresses one of the most significant theoretical vulnerabilities facing modern cryptography and digital asset security today. Consequently, the initiative positions the XRP Ledger as a potential early adopter of post-quantum cryptographic standards within the broader cryptocurrency industry. Ripple’s XRP Ledger Quantum Resistance Roadmap Explained Ripple’s comprehensive strategy unfolds across four distinct and sequential steps, each designed to methodically harden the network’s defenses. The first step involves migrating all on-ledger assets to newly created, quantum-secure accounts. This initial phase specifically targets the protection of exposed public keys and long-term digital asset holdings. Subsequently, the second step will involve a thorough quantum vulnerability assessment across the entire XRP Ledger network. Engineers will rigorously test quantum defense mechanisms, including those proposed by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The final two steps focus on implementation and deployment. Step three entails the integration of both existing and new quantum-resistant digital signature algorithms on a dedicated testnet environment. This sandbox allows for extensive testing without risking the stability of the main network. Finally, step four will see the deployment of a new, quantum-resistant amendment to the live XRP Ledger. This amendment will represent the culmination of the years-long project, fundamentally upgrading the protocol’s cryptographic foundation. The Quantum Computing Threat to Blockchain Quantum computing represents a paradigm shift in computational power. Unlike classical computers, quantum machines use qubits. These qubits can exist in multiple states simultaneously through superposition. This capability allows quantum computers to solve certain complex mathematical problems exponentially faster. Notably, Shor’s algorithm, a quantum algorithm, could theoretically break the public-key cryptography that secures most blockchains, including Bitcoin and Ethereum. This vulnerability stems from the ability to factor large integers quickly, a task that underpins cryptographic security. The timeline for a cryptographically relevant quantum computer remains uncertain. However, experts from organizations like the National Security Agency (NSA) and MIT have consistently warned about “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks. In such scenarios, adversaries collect encrypted data today to decrypt it later with a powerful quantum machine. Therefore, proactive migration to post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is not premature but a necessary precaution for systems managing trillions in value. Ripple’s 2028 target aligns with conservative estimates from agencies like NIST, which is currently standardizing PQC algorithms. Industry Context and Ripple’s Proactive Stance Ripple’s announcement places it among the first major blockchain entities to publicly detail a quantum-resistance transition plan. While other projects discuss the threat, few have published a multi-year, phased technical roadmap. This proactive approach may enhance the XRP Ledger’s appeal to institutional users who prioritize long-term security and regulatory compliance. Furthermore, the plan leverages the XRP Ledger’s built-in amendment process. This feature allows for seamless protocol upgrades without contentious hard forks, a common challenge in other blockchain communities. The initiative also reflects broader trends in cybersecurity. For instance, the White House issued a national security memorandum in 2022 urging federal agencies to migrate to quantum-resistant cryptography. Similarly, financial authorities globally are increasing scrutiny on technological risks. By aligning its efforts with NIST standards, Ripple ensures its solutions will be interoperable and vetted by leading cryptographers. This alignment provides a layer of external validation and trust for the ecosystem’s participants. Technical Implementation and Challenges The transition to quantum resistance involves significant technical complexity. One primary challenge is maintaining backward compatibility and ensuring uninterrupted service during the migration. The roadmap addresses this by starting with asset migration to new accounts, a process that will require clear user communication and tooling. Another hurdle is the performance overhead of new PQC algorithms. Quantum-resistant signatures are often larger and require more computational power to verify than current elliptic-curve cryptography (ECC). Ripple’s engineers will need to optimize these algorithms for the XRP Ledger’s high-throughput, low-cost environment. The testnet phase is critical for stress-testing these implementations under realistic network conditions. Additionally, the ecosystem must consider smart contracts and other layered functionalities built on the ledger. The quantum-resistant amendment must ensure all components of the decentralized network remain secure and functional. This holistic approach is essential for maintaining the network’s utility and value. Comparative Table: Current vs. Post-Quantum Cryptography Aspect Current Cryptography (ECDSA) Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Security Basis Difficulty of solving the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem Difficulty of solving lattice-based, code-based, or multivariate problems Quantum Threat Vulnerable to Shor’s Algorithm Designed to be resistant to both classical and quantum attacks Signature Size ~64-72 bytes Can range from ~1KB to >10KB Adoption Status Universal standard for blockchains Undergoing standardization (NIST process); early adoption phase Potential Impact on the XRP Ecosystem The successful execution of this roadmap could have profound implications for the XRP ecosystem. First, it would significantly de-risk the ledger from a long-term technological threat, potentially increasing its attractiveness for large-scale, cross-border payment settlements—Ripple’s core use case. Second, it positions XRPL as a technologically forward-looking platform. This reputation could attract developers interested in building durable decentralized applications (dApps). Finally, it sets a precedent for the entire cryptocurrency industry, demonstrating a viable path for other networks to follow. However, the process requires careful coordination with exchanges, wallet providers, and custodians. These third-party services must update their systems to support the new quantum-resistant accounts and transaction formats. Ripple’s developer relations team will likely play a key role in facilitating this ecosystem-wide upgrade. The 2028 timeline provides a multi-year window for all participants to prepare, test, and transition smoothly. Conclusion Ripple’s unveiling of a four-step roadmap for XRP Ledger quantum resistance marks a strategic and necessary investment in the network’s future-proofing. By targeting 2028 for full deployment, Ripple aligns with global cryptographic standardization efforts while providing a clear timeline for its community. This plan directly addresses a fundamental threat to all blockchain-based assets. The systematic approach—from assessment to testnet to mainnet amendment—showcases a mature response to a complex challenge. Ultimately, the initiative underscores the critical importance of evolving security measures in parallel with advancing computational capabilities to safeguard the integrity of the digital financial infrastructure. FAQs Q1: What is quantum resistance, and why does the XRP Ledger need it? Quantum resistance refers to cryptographic systems that remain secure against attacks from both classical and quantum computers. The XRP Ledger needs it because future quantum computers could break its current encryption, potentially compromising asset security. Q2: When does Ripple plan to complete the quantum-resistant upgrade? Ripple’s roadmap aims to fully deploy a quantum-resistant amendment to the XRP Ledger by 2028. The process involves four phases, starting with asset migration and culminating in the mainnet upgrade. Q3: Will my existing XRP holdings be affected during this transition? Yes, but the process is designed for safety. The first step involves migrating assets to new, quantum-secure accounts. Users will need to move their holdings using tools and instructions provided by Ripple and wallet services, similar to past account updates. Q4: Is the XRP Ledger the only blockchain working on quantum resistance? No, it is not. The threat is industry-wide. However, Ripple is among the first to publish a detailed, phased technical roadmap with a specific completion target, placing it at the forefront of this transition effort. Q5: What are the biggest technical challenges in achieving quantum resistance? The main challenges include integrating larger, more complex post-quantum signatures without harming network performance, ensuring backward compatibility, and coordinating a seamless ecosystem-wide upgrade involving exchanges, wallets, and developers. This post Crucial Defense: Ripple Unveils 4-Step Roadmap for XRP Ledger Quantum Resistance by 2028 first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

17 Apr 2026, 17:30

Bitcoin Miners Confront Alarming Triple Threat: Quantum Computing, AI Exodus, and Revenue Crisis

BitcoinWorld Bitcoin Miners Confront Alarming Triple Threat: Quantum Computing, AI Exodus, and Revenue Crisis Bitcoin miners now confront an unprecedented triple threat that jeopardizes their entire operational model, according to recent industry analysis. The convergence of quantum computing risks, a massive shift toward artificial intelligence infrastructure, and critically low network activity creates what experts describe as a perfect storm for the sector. This alarming situation threatens not just profitability but the fundamental security assumptions underlying the Bitcoin network itself. Bitcoin Miners Face Existential Quantum Computing Threat Quantum computing represents the most significant long-term risk to Bitcoin mining operations. Current cryptographic systems, including those securing Bitcoin transactions, rely on mathematical problems that classical computers cannot solve efficiently. However, quantum computers operate on fundamentally different principles using quantum bits or qubits. These machines could potentially break the elliptic curve cryptography that protects Bitcoin wallets and mining operations. The threat emerges from Shor’s algorithm, a quantum computing method that can factor large numbers exponentially faster than classical computers. Bitcoin’s security model assumes this factoring problem remains computationally difficult. Quantum advancements could render this assumption obsolete. Researchers estimate that a quantum computer with sufficient qubits and error correction could break Bitcoin’s encryption within minutes rather than the millennia required by today’s most powerful supercomputers. Major technology companies and research institutions continue making quantum breakthroughs. IBM recently announced its 1,000-qubit quantum processor, while Google achieved quantum supremacy in specific calculations. Although practical quantum attacks on Bitcoin remain years away, the mining industry must prepare now. The transition period presents particular vulnerability as quantum capabilities develop gradually before reaching critical thresholds. The Accelerating Shift Toward AI Infrastructure Simultaneously, Bitcoin miners face massive economic pressure to repurpose their infrastructure for artificial intelligence workloads. The AI boom creates unprecedented demand for high-performance computing resources, particularly GPU clusters for training large language models. Mining operations possess exactly this infrastructure: specialized facilities with robust power supplies, advanced cooling systems, and high-speed internet connections. Several factors drive this infrastructure migration. First, AI computing offers more predictable revenue streams than Bitcoin mining’s volatility. Second, major cloud providers and AI companies actively seek additional computing capacity through partnerships with mining operations. Third, some jurisdictions provide more favorable regulatory environments for AI versus cryptocurrency operations. Finally, energy costs increasingly favor AI workloads that can be paused during peak pricing periods, unlike continuous mining operations. This shift creates a network security concern. Bitcoin’s proof-of-work consensus mechanism relies on distributed mining power to prevent attacks. As miners redirect resources to AI, the remaining network hashrate decreases proportionally. A significant reduction in mining participation could theoretically enable 51% attacks, where malicious actors control enough computing power to manipulate transactions. The network becomes more vulnerable as mining concentration increases among remaining participants. Expert Perspectives on Sector Challenges Industry leaders express growing concern about these converging threats. Nick Hansen, CEO of Bitcoin mining software and services company Luxor, recently stated there are currently no positive catalysts for the sector. His assessment reflects broader industry sentiment that mining faces structural challenges beyond typical market cycles. Hansen emphasized that quantum computing represents an existential threat requiring immediate attention from developers and miners alike. Other experts note the AI shift creates immediate economic pressures. Mining operations must choose between continuing with potentially unprofitable Bitcoin mining or converting facilities for more lucrative AI workloads. This decision carries significant capital costs for equipment replacement and retraining staff. Many operations face financial constraints following the 2022 cryptocurrency market downturn, limiting their ability to adapt quickly to changing conditions. The timing exacerbates these challenges. Bitcoin’s recent halving event reduced block rewards from 6.25 to 3.125 BTC per block, cutting miner revenue precisely when operational costs remain high. Transaction fees have not increased sufficiently to offset this reduction, creating revenue pressure that makes AI alternatives increasingly attractive. Network activity metrics show declining transaction volumes during periods of low price volatility, further reducing fee income. Critical Network Activity and Revenue Challenges Bitcoin network activity currently remains insufficient to sustain mining operations at profitable levels. Daily transaction counts have fluctuated between 200,000 and 600,000 throughout 2024, well below peaks exceeding 700,000 during previous bull markets. This reduced activity translates directly to lower transaction fee revenue for miners, who rely on these fees to supplement diminishing block rewards. The revenue crisis becomes clear when examining break-even calculations. Mining operations require specific revenue thresholds to cover electricity, equipment, and operational costs. Current Bitcoin prices and network difficulty levels place many operations near or below these thresholds. The following table illustrates approximate break-even points for different mining setups: Mining Hardware Hash Rate Power Consumption Break-even BTC Price Antminer S19 XP 140 TH/s 3,010W $45,000 Whatsminer M50S 126 TH/s 3,276W $48,000 Avalon A1266 130 TH/s 3,276W $47,500 These calculations assume electricity costs of $0.07 per kWh and current network difficulty. Many operations face higher energy costs, particularly in North America and Europe where mining concentrated following China’s 2021 ban. The revenue pressure forces difficult decisions about continuing operations, upgrading equipment, or exiting the sector entirely. Network security metrics reflect these economic pressures. Bitcoin’s total hashrate has shown unusual volatility, with significant drops following price declines and gradual recovery during rallies. This volatility indicates marginal operations entering and exiting based on short-term profitability rather than long-term commitment. The network becomes less stable as this volatility increases, potentially affecting transaction confirmation times and reliability. Potential Solutions and Adaptation Strategies The mining industry explores several adaptation strategies to address these interconnected threats. For quantum computing, developers work on quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms that could be implemented through soft forks. These algorithms would replace current elliptic curve cryptography with lattice-based or hash-based approaches that quantum computers cannot easily break. Transition planning remains complex, requiring coordination across developers, miners, exchanges, and wallet providers. Regarding AI competition, some mining operations adopt hybrid models that allocate resources between both workloads. During periods of low Bitcoin profitability, facilities can switch to AI computing, then return to mining when conditions improve. This approach requires flexible infrastructure supporting both ASIC miners for Bitcoin and GPU clusters for AI. The capital investment remains substantial but spreads risk across multiple revenue streams. Network activity challenges may see solutions through Layer 2 scaling implementations. The Lightning Network and other second-layer solutions increase transaction capacity without requiring main chain blockspace. As these solutions mature, they could generate additional fee revenue for miners through channel opening and closing transactions. Main chain activity might decrease, but fee-per-transaction could increase for settlement layers. Energy innovation represents another adaptation area. Miners increasingly partner with renewable energy projects and grid stabilization programs. These partnerships provide more predictable energy costs while supporting broader sustainability goals. Some operations even participate in demand response programs, temporarily reducing consumption during grid stress periods in exchange for payments. This flexibility improves economics while addressing environmental concerns. Conclusion Bitcoin miners confront a genuine triple threat from quantum computing risks, AI infrastructure competition, and insufficient network activity. These challenges intersect to create unprecedented pressure on mining economics and network security. The quantum computing threat remains theoretical but requires immediate preparation given its potential to undermine cryptographic foundations. The AI shift presents more immediate economic pressures as alternative computing workloads offer better returns. Meanwhile, low network activity prevents revenue from reaching sustainable levels for many operations. The Bitcoin mining sector must innovate rapidly across technology, business models, and energy strategies to navigate this complex landscape successfully. Industry adaptation will determine whether mining remains decentralized and secure or becomes concentrated among specialized operations with hybrid capabilities. FAQs Q1: How soon could quantum computing threaten Bitcoin mining? Most experts estimate practical quantum attacks remain 5-10 years away, but preparation must begin now due to the lengthy transition period required for new cryptographic standards. Q2: Why are Bitcoin miners shifting to AI infrastructure? AI computing offers more predictable revenue, lower energy sensitivity, better regulatory environments in some regions, and partnerships with major technology companies seeking computing capacity. Q3: What happens if too many miners leave the Bitcoin network? Significant miner exodus reduces network hashrate, potentially enabling 51% attacks where malicious actors could manipulate transactions. It also increases mining concentration among remaining participants. Q4: Can Bitcoin’s code be updated to resist quantum computers? Yes, developers work on quantum-resistant algorithms that could be implemented through soft forks, but coordination across the ecosystem remains challenging. Q5: How does low network activity affect miner revenue? Low transaction volume means fewer fees collected by miners, who rely on these fees to supplement fixed block rewards, especially important following halving events that reduce block rewards. This post Bitcoin Miners Confront Alarming Triple Threat: Quantum Computing, AI Exodus, and Revenue Crisis first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

17 Apr 2026, 14:00

Nic Carter Says Bitcoin Has 3 Ways To Handle Satoshi’s Coins

Founding partner at Castle Island Ventures Nic Carter has laid out what he sees as three plausible paths for Bitcoin as the industry moves toward post-quantum cryptography: freeze vulnerable early coins, leave them untouched and accept the consequences, or pursue a legal “salvage” process that avoids a protocol-level confiscation. The debate matters because, in Carter’s framing, roughly 1.7 million BTC in old pay-to-pubkey outputs could become exposed if Bitcoin eventually deprecates elliptic curve signatures and a cryptographically relevant quantum computer arrives. The Third Option In Bitcoin’s Satoshi Coin Battle In a post on X, Carter argued that the Overton window around quantum risk has shifted quickly. What was recently treated as a fringe concern, he wrote, is now increasingly being discussed as an eventual engineering and governance problem for Bitcoin itself. “The thing about the PQ transition is, it’s impossible as a Bitcoiner to claim that this protocol is cutting edge technology if Bitcoin, a monetary system predicated entirely on cryptography, is a laggard,” he wrote, adding that betting the fate of the network on the hope that the technology does not advance would be both reckless and embarrassing. From there, Carter sketched the upgrade path he expects. After a soft fork, Bitcoin would likely move through an intermediate phase in which users could sign with existing ECC-based schemes or with new post-quantum signatures. Eventually, he wrote, legacy signatures such as ECDSA and Schnorr would be disallowed entirely. That transition, in his telling, is the easy part. The harder question comes later: what to do with coins that never migrate. He framed that dispute as a clash between two camps already taking shape. On one side are institutions, custodians, exchanges, and fiduciaries that would view a freeze of non-migrated coins as the only acceptable option. Carter’s argument is that these actors cannot tolerate the risk that dormant holdings, including Satoshi’s coins, might suddenly be recovered by a hostile quantum-capable party and dumped into the market or otherwise used to destabilize Bitcoin. On the other side are hardcore Bitcoiners and ideological purists who see any such freeze as a fundamental breach of the system’s monetary and political principles. Carter described their position in stark terms: “Satoshi set 21 million as the monetary parameter, and no one alive has the authority to arbitrarily modify that to 19.x million. Bitcoin doesn’t engage in selective ‘irregular state changes’ like Ethereum did after the DAO was hacked in 2016. Even after 850k BTC were lost to Mt Gox, nothing was done at the protocol layer to recover the funds.” Carter said he believes the freeze camp is more likely to win than many Bitcoiners assume, largely because the structure of the market has changed since the 2015-2017 blocksize wars . In his view, today’s Bitcoin is far more concentrated in corporate entities, ETF issuers, custodians and large asset managers, giving “economic nodes” much more leverage than they had a decade ago. He also noted that some influential technical figures have already taken the side of freezing vulnerable coins if a genuine threat emerges. Still, Carter’s preferred outcome is neither a freeze nor a laissez-faire approach. His “secret third thing” is a legal salvage framework. Under that scenario, a US quantum leader such as Google , IBM or another domestic firm would build the first cryptographically relevant quantum computer and, under court authority, recover the vulnerable coins into trust-like structures rather than take ownership outright. “It would go like this,” Carter wrote. “A US firm, whether it’s Google, or IBM, or one of the other quantum leaders… acquires a CRQC first, and contracts with the US government to lawfully recover the 1.7m p2pk coins. They do not obtain ownership of these coins, but are rather appointed by a court as a neutral receiver or court-authorized custodian, tasked with securing and returning the assets to their rightful owners where possible and otherwise holding them in trust pending judicial disposition.” In Carter’s ordering, lawful salvage is the best result, a freeze is second-best, and a no-freeze outcome ranks far behind. “If Bitcoin really does freeze the coins, then something about Bitcoin will truly have died,” he wrote. “It would survive, but it will be forever changed.” At press time, Bitcoin traded at $74,795.

17 Apr 2026, 09:00

Bitcoin Derivatives Are The Earliest Signal Of A Quantum Selloff: Joshua Lim

Bitcoin’s quantum risk may show up in derivatives markets well before any compromised coins move on-chain, according to FalconX co-head of markets Joshua Lim, who used an X thread on April 16 to map out what he sees as the most tradable signals around a potential “q-day” event. Lim’s core argument is that the market problem is not simply whether Bitcoin can migrate to post-quantum cryptography. It is also whether the network can politically resolve what to do with Satoshi Nakamoto’s coins and other old outputs that may never participate in such a migration. Quantum Risk Could Hit Bitcoin Through Derivatives Lim framed the issue as two separate questions. The first is technical: how Bitcoin could move away from elliptic curve cryptography used to secure private keys. The second is more fraught. “How to deal with the fundamentally non-mathematical and wholly sociopolitical question of what to do with Satoshi’s coins,” he wrote, arguing that the largest risk around quantum computing is not just cryptographic breakage but the governance crisis that could follow. He said a migration path for most of Bitcoin’s UTXOs is at least conceivable, pointing to BIP 361 as one example of a proposal that addresses both post-quantum migration and the handling of Satoshi-era coins. But that only solves part of the problem. Lim estimated that Satoshi’s holdings amount to roughly 1.1 million BTC, while other old or lost coins in pay-to-public-key addresses could push the total exposed supply to as much as 1.7 million BTC, which he called a “$127bn question.” Related Reading: 9 Reasons Why The Bitcoin Bottom May Already Be In: Expert Those coins, he argued, are different because they likely would not participate in any community-led migration unless Satoshi is still active and willing to move them. That creates two outcomes, neither comfortable for markets. “EITHER Satoshi is still around and can move coins pre q-day, in which case BTC price will tank because the market will re-price the probability of those coins being sold in the future,” Lim wrote. “OR Satoshi is not around and someone will decide to steal the coins via a sufficiently powerful QC.” That is why, in Lim’s telling, Satoshi’s coins are “not a math problem.” The available responses are political. One option would be to burn those coins through governance, a move he said would raise serious questions around immutability, sovereignty, and precedent. The other would be a hard fork that lets the market choose between a chain that neutralizes the coins and one that preserves the current ruleset, even if that leaves open the eventual risk of a quantum-enabled seizure. Lim suggested that even an attempt at the first path could lead to the second. “Our only prophylactic is to EITHER A) burn Satoshi’s coins via governance,” he wrote, before outlining the trade-off, “OR B) create a hard fork and allow for the market to decide which is the true BTC.” In his view, that likely becomes a political contest over Bitcoin’s identity as much as a security response. He added that the most likely quantum thief, if such a scenario emerged, would be “a state-level actor.” From there, Lim shifted from theory to market structure. He contrasted any future fork with Bitcoin’s August 2017 split, which produced BTC and BCH. Back then, he noted, Bitcoin was a roughly $45 billion, mostly retail market, and many holders welcomed the fork because it effectively created an additional asset. Today’s market is different: around $1.5 trillion, far more institutional, and wrapped in ETFs, listed futures, and options. That changes how risk would likely transmit. “A hard fork today, or even the prospect of one, would be an entirely different beast,” Lim wrote. “It would result in extreme volatility and likely downward price action: a large gap down and massive cascading liquidations.” He added that if the community were close to evenly split on whether to burn exposed coins, institutional investors might have a mandate to de-risk ahead of the event, amplifying downside pressure. Related Reading: Bitcoin Bulls Eye $78,000, But Glassnode Urges Caution That is where derivatives come in. Lim argued the earliest warning signs of q-day risk are most likely to emerge in long-dated options skew, forward basis, and the distribution of open interest across traditional and crypto-native venues. He pointed out that long-dated BTC put skew is near multi-year highs, with downside protection relatively expensive compared with calls, and said the last comparable elevation came around the Three Arrows Capital and FTX collapses in 2022. He also flagged long-dated basis, noting that Bitcoin futures are trading near multi-year lows relative to spot. In Lim’s framework, q-day risk should compress or even invert basis because market participants hedge for downside while others position for a possible fork-related “airdrop,” similar in concept to 2017. Since the timing of any quantum breakthrough would be uncertain, he expects those signals to appear farther out on the curve. Still, he stopped short of saying the market is already pricing an imminent quantum event. Some signals are “flashing red,” he wrote, but they can also be explained by broader systemic risks or secular shifts, including growing institutional participation through venues such as CME and IBIT options. For now, Lim described the picture as mixed. His broader point was simpler: if q-day ever begins to look real, traders likely will not first see it in dormant coins moving. They will see it in derivatives. At press time, Bitcoin traded at $75,024. Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com

17 Apr 2026, 07:10

Bitcoin Price Prediction: Cardano Hoskinson Says BTC Fix Can’t Save Satoshi Bags

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has gone on record calling Bitcoin’s proposed quantum defense both technically mislabeled and functionally inadequate. The detail most outlets are missing: roughly 1.7 million BTC may be beyond saving, no matter what developers vote through. This is all happening when Bitcoin price prediction is getting bullish. In a video posted to his YouTube channel late Wednesday, Hoskinson dissected BIP-361, the proposal from developer Jameson Lopp and others to phase out quantum-vulnerable Bitcoin addresses. He says that BIP-361 is being marketed as a soft fork but would functionally require a hard fork, since it invalidates existing signature schemes that active users currently rely on. “To actually do this, you need a hard fork,” Hoskinson said flatly. He called the soft fork characterization a lie. Bitcoin’s development culture has historically treated hard forks as violations of the network’s immutability, which makes the political fallout as significant as the technical one. The broader quantum security debate has been intensifying across the industry for months. Bitcoin developers just proposed freezing early BTC wallets forever Bitcoin developers led by Jameson Lopp have published BIP-361, a post-quantum migration proposal. It requires holders to move their coins to quantum-resistant addresses or face permanent freezing by the network.… pic.twitter.com/X0JuPg26Ez — BSCN (@BSCNews) April 15, 2026 The deeper problem sits in the recovery mechanism . BIP-361 proposes that users with frozen quantum-vulnerable funds could reclaim them via a zero-knowledge proof tied to a BIP-39 seed phrase. According to Hoskinson, approximately 1.7 million BTC, including the estimated ~1 million coins attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto, predate BIP-39’s 2013 introduction entirely. No BIP-39 seed phrase exists for those wallets. The zero-knowledge recovery path simply doesn’t apply. Satoshi’s coins, by this analysis, are structurally unrecoverable under the current proposal regardless of how the fork resolves. Discover: The best crypto to diversify your portfolio with Bitcoin Price Prediction: Fork or no Fork, $250,000 the Target Hoskinson’s skepticism about Bitcoin’s protocol governance hasn’t dampened his price outlook. He publicly predicted BTC reaches $250,000 by mid-2026, a 3X from current levels, citing institutional inflows, Magnificent 7 tech integration, the incoming Clarity Act, and sustained end-user growth as primary drivers. He reiterated the forecast in a Bloomberg interview at TOKEN2049 Singapore. HOSKINSON PUSHES HIS $250K BITCOIN TARGET TO LATE 2026. After calling for $250,000 $BTC by end-2025 in April and then moving it to mid-2026 in October, he now expects it to happen by the end of 2026. pic.twitter.com/uyCKexxoKF — Coin Bureau (@coinbureau) November 23, 2025 Technically, Bitcoin’s current position at just under $74,000 reflects a meaningful recovery from the sub-$66,000 low due to the fear of an Iran war. Early this month, the peak stood at $73,000; BTC has now cleared that level convincingly. Analyst consensus has been steadily repricing upward as macro headwinds ease. BTC USD, TradingView The quantum debate is a wildcard that existing price models don’t price cleanly. If BIP-361 stalls, or forces a hard fork, short-term volatility is the near-certain outcome. Discover: The best pre-launch token sales Bitcoin is Getting Forked, Hyper is Here to Fix Bitcoin’s limitations are precisely what’s fueling conviction in the layer-2 thesis right now. To be back to $120,000+ high, BTC’s upside requires institutional scale, an asymmetric early-stage return that individual traders once found in spot BTC is largely gone. Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER) is positioning directly inside that gap. It’s the first Bitcoin Layer 2 integrating the Solana Virtual Machine (SVM), delivering faster smart contract execution than Solana itself while preserving Bitcoin’s underlying security. The project has raised $32 million at a current presale price of $0.0136 , with a high 36% APY staking already live. Key infrastructure includes a Decentralized Canonical Bridge for BTC transfers and extremely low-latency transaction processing, addressing Bitcoin’s three core bottlenecks simultaneously: slow speed, high fees, and zero programmability. The presale has been gaining traction precisely as the Bitcoin protocol debate raises questions about the base layer’s adaptability. Research Bitcoin Hyper before the current price tier closes. The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: Cardano Hoskinson Says BTC Fix Can’t Save Satoshi Bags appeared first on Cryptonews .