A proposed draft to defend Bitcoin against the potential threat of quantum computing has shifted the discussion from cryptography to how the network is governed. Questions now focus on whether Bitcoin’s consensus-driven system, designed to be resistant to change, could agree on a major upgrade before a quantum computing threat becomes inevitable.
Hoskinson questions Bitcoin’s adaptability
The issue came under renewed scrutiny after Cardano co-founder Charles Hoskinson argued that Bitcoin’s main challenge is not quantum computing technology itself, but rather its ability to organize an effective response before the risk materializes. Cardano is a blockchain platform known for its emphasis on peer-reviewed research and decentralized governance.
During an interview on The Starting Block, Hoskinson noted that quantum computers could endanger Bitcoin’s standing as the world’s largest digital currency if its stakeholders cannot reach agreement on necessary upgrades.
“The issue with Bitcoin is it’s frozen in time. It’s very difficult to change anything,” stated Hoskinson, contrasting Cardano’s ability to quickly enact protocol changes through on-chain voting with Bitcoin’s slower process.
Hoskinson referred to Cardano’s recent instance where elected delegates voted down a proposal lacking the required two-thirds majority, highlighting a governance structure that allows for formalized change. In contrast, Bitcoin does not have such formal voting systems, which has sparked debate over its ability to adapt as a network.
BIP-361 proposes a staged migration
At the center of the discussion is BIP-361, known as “Post Quantum Migration and Legacy Signature Sunset.” Conceived by Casa founding member Jameson Lopp and several collaborators, the proposal outlines a multi-phase approach for Bitcoin’s transition from its current ECDSA and Schnorr signature algorithms, aiming to mitigate risks if quantum computers become practical.
The proposal notes that, as of March 1, 2026, more than 34% of all Bitcoin have their public keys revealed on-chain, potentially exposing them to theft from future quantum-powered attacks. The migration plan would start with Stage A, where users would no longer be able to transfer funds to vulnerable legacy addresses. Stage B would follow two years later, completely preventing use of coins still at risk, although users would retain possession of these coins without transaction capability.
| Stage | Action | Approximate Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Stage A | Disallow transfers to legacy addresses | Year 3 from start |
| Stage B | Disable spending from unmigrated coins | Year 5 from start |
Developers and community push back
The proposed plan, particularly its final step, has faced criticism on developer forums and X, with some describing it as “authoritarian and confiscatory,” and others calling it “predatory.”
Jameson Lopp clarified that BIP-361 is not finalized and is not being put forward for activation. He described it as an early-stage contingency plan in need of significant research and development rather than an immediate solution. Lopp emphasized a preference for grappling with the risks, rather than ignoring them altogether.
Prototype recovery options and open proposals
To address concerns over permanently inaccessible assets, the Project Eleven security group and Jim Posen of Binius have developed a prototype recovery method using zero-knowledge proofs. This technique enables users of modern wallets generated via seed phrases (following BIP-32 standards) to prove ownership and recover funds that might otherwise be frozen.
However, this solution cannot be applied to older wallet technologies, leaving about 1.1 million BTC—estimated to belong to Bitcoin’s creator Satoshi Nakamoto and valued around $84 billion—potentially unprotected.
Paradigm, a crypto investment firm, has introduced another proposal known as Provable Address-Control Timestamps (PACTs). This approach would let users privately generate timestamped proofs of ownership ahead of a major protocol change, using quantum-resistant STARK zero-knowledge proofs to unlock coins after a migration event. Like other recovery strategies, this would require further protocol upgrades and broad community agreement before becoming available in Bitcoin.
No such mechanism is part of BIP-361 today, and any potential recovery path would need its own proposal, extensive technical reviews, and community consensus.
BIP-361 remains a draft, and its specific processes and timelines could be revised before any actual implementation occurs. As such, discussions continue on how to best secure the network while preserving decentralization and user autonomy.
Mini dictionary: Zero-knowledge proofs are cryptographic methods that allow one party to prove knowledge of a fact to another party without sharing the underlying information itself. They have become increasingly important for privacy and security enhancements in blockchain systems.
