Alex Thorn, head of Galaxy Research, shared insights on the impact of quantum computing on the first cryptocurrency. A consensus is emerging in the community on two key issues.
i had many discussions about quantum & bitcoin in las vegas this week, both on and off stage, with skeptics, advocates, and many overall smart bitcoiners
— Alex Thorn (@intangiblecoins) May 2, 2026
some consensus i feel is emerging:
1) satoshi’s coins (P2PK) should not be touched. violating his property rights could be…
Thorn believes that Satoshi Nakamoto's coins (P2PK format) should remain untouched, even under the threat of hacking. Violating the creator's property rights would undermine Bitcoin's value proposition.
The risk of expropriating these funds is lower than commonly thought. The coins are spread across 22,000 addresses, meaning an attacker would need to hack each wallet individually rather than the entire network at once. Additionally, major exchanges and active users can transition to quantum-resistant addresses in advance.
The analyst noted that the market can absorb even a sudden influx of a large volume of coins. He believes Bitcoin holders would prefer a temporary price drop over compromising the fundamental principles of the protocol.
Thorn supports the development of post-quantum cryptography. Testing new algorithms and optimizing signatures are beneficial for the network, provided they do not create divisions within the community or distract developers from other tasks.
The researcher suggested preparing a technical solution and keeping it on standby. This would allow for a swift implementation of an update when the quantum threat becomes real.
Thorn assessed the likelihood of a critical impact from quantum technologies on Bitcoin at 1%. However, he deemed the current discussions valuable for preparing the system for future challenges.
In April, Bitcoin developer Jameson Lopp and a group of experts presented a draft proposal BIP-361. This initiative suggests freezing coins vulnerable to quantum computers.
The community criticized the idea, labeling it authoritarian and confiscatory.