BitMEX Research on Quantum Computing and Bitcoin Security
BitMEX Research has conducted a detailed retrospective study examining the ongoing discourse surrounding quantum computing and its implications for Bitcoin’s security. This deep dive into historical perspectives reveals that concerns raised over a decade ago mirror those prevalent in modern discussions about the cryptocurrency’s vulnerabilities.
Historical Concerns and Early Warnings
During Bitcoin’s nascent stage around 2010, there were dire warnings about the potential for the U.S. government to breach Bitcoin’s encryption through quantum computing techniques within a mere five years. Advocates for immediate adaptation to “post-quantum” algorithms voiced their fears in various forums, one of which, BitcoinTalk, prominently features debates on quantum computing’s perceived existential threat to Bitcoin.
Originally, some participants likened quantum computing to a “massive hammer” capable of dismantling existing cryptographic protections and rendering the cryptocurrency obsolete.
Prominent users on the forum, such as Kiba and Grondilu, stressed the concern that if quantum computing advancements reached a level where they could sufficiently decrypt Bitcoin, equivalent vulnerabilities would also threaten established digital security, including SSL protocols, banking infrastructures, and even military secrets. However, a substantial faction dismissed these fears, labeling them as speculative or akin to “science fiction.”
One commentary highlighted that, at that time, the most remarkable achievement of quantum computing was merely the ability to factor the number 15, asserting that it would take decades before such technology could impact encryption standards meaningfully. Skepticism was also directed at companies like D-Wave, which were thought to be overstating their achievements in the field.
The Case Against Hasty Adaptation
BitMEX Research contends that if Bitcoin had hastily transitioned to quantum-resistant encryption methods a decade or so ago, it would have proved detrimental. Early developments in post-quantum cryptography resulted in notoriously large signature sizes — often stretching into kilobytes — causing significant challenges for blockchain efficiency. Such adaptations would have inflated the size of each Bitcoin transaction, leading to increased costs and a slower processing time.
Fortunately, Bitcoin developers have since postponed the switch, allowing them to explore far more efficient cryptographic technologies. Today, the introduction of 350-byte signatures marks a significant advancement in the field, presenting a viable solution that remains compatible with Bitcoin’s block size limitations.
In comparison, conventional Bitcoin signatures (ECDSA/Schnorr) are approximately 64 bytes in size, making the evolution towards quantum-resistant alternatives not only feasible but also practical for widespread use.
