A speculative scenario circulating online this weekend reignited debate across crypto communities: what if a powerful quantum computer could steal Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated 1 million BTC and dump them on the market, triggering a catastrophic price crash?
The discussion took off after YouTuber Josh Otten shared a Bitcoin price chart showing a hypothetical collapse to $3, arguing such an outcome could follow a quantum attack on Satoshi’s long-dormant coins. Veteran Bitcoin analyst Willy Woo pushed back, saying many long-time holders would eagerly buy a flash crash and that the Bitcoin network itself would survive. Still, Woo highlighted an important technical detail that adds nuance to the conversation: around 4 million BTC are held in older pay-to-public-key (P2PK) outputs that expose full public keys onchain when spent, potentially making them more vulnerable to future quantum attacks.
At the heart of the debate is public-key cryptography. Today’s Bitcoin security relies on mathematical problems that are infeasible for classical computers to solve. In theory, however, a sufficiently advanced quantum computer could derive a private key from a revealed public key. If that were possible, an attacker could move those coins and sell them, potentially causing major market disruption. Newer Bitcoin address types are designed to reduce this risk by limiting when public keys are revealed, which is why many experts see the issue as manageable rather than existential.
How Real Is the Quantum Threat to Bitcoin?
Many respected voices in the space argue that fears of an imminent quantum attack are overblown. Blockstream co-founder and cypherpunk Adam Back has said Bitcoin is likely decades away — perhaps 20 to 40 years — from facing a genuine quantum threat. That timeline, he argues, gives developers and users ample opportunity to transition to post-quantum cryptographic standards, many of which already exist in research and early implementation.
Market analyst James Check echoes that view, noting that Bitcoin’s core protocol is not inherently doomed. Instead, risk would be concentrated at the user and wallet level, where migration to quantum-resistant address types could happen well before any practical attack becomes possible. In that sense, Bitcoin’s adaptability is seen as a strength, not a weakness.
Market Risk and Volatility Remain the Bigger Concern
While experts largely dismiss near-term technical doom, they acknowledge a different kind of risk: market psychology. Check has warned that if a quantum attacker ever did move and sell high-profile coins — especially those associated with Satoshi — the resulting shock could cause extreme price volatility. He also believes there is little chance the Bitcoin community would ever agree to freezing Satoshi’s coins in advance, even to prevent such an outcome.
Others argue that a quantum attack on Bitcoin would be inefficient or unnecessary compared with attacking traditional financial systems or state-level cryptography. Still, the debate highlights an ongoing tension between long-term technological risks and short-term market reactions.
Bottom line: the vulnerability tied to revealed public keys is real in theory, but the timeline for a practical quantum attack remains highly uncertain. Most experts agree Bitcoin has time to evolve and adopt post-quantum cryptography before facing an existential threat. Even so, any credible, high-profile exploit — real or rumored — could trigger sharp market swings, making quantum risk as much a psychological and economic issue as a technical one.
