#BlockchainQuantumSecurity
About BlockchainQuantumSecurity
AI-assisted math research may expose weaknesses in some proposed cryptography, while future quantum computers could threaten BTC and ETH signatures. No practical break of these signatures has been shown. NIST has issued post-quantum standards, and a US Energy Department quantum contest offers up to $215M in planned funding. Ethereum and Bitcoin developers are exploring upgrades; Coinbase has outlined key-management work. How can networks plan safe wallet migration and protect older addresses?
رائج
الأحدث
BlockchainQuantumSecurity المنشورات الشائعة
Quantum risk is not an emergency trade signal: the source says no practical break of BTC or ETH signatures has been shown. The harder issue is operational. Post-quantum standards and upgrade research matter only if wallet migration can reach older addresses without turning key management into a new failure point. Preparedness should be measured by migration paths, not headlines.
#BlockchainQuantumSecurity
AI forecasts Bitcoin security faces 76% risk by 2046
On-chain analyst Willy Woo sparked fresh debate over Bitcoin’s long-term security on Sunday, October 11, 2026, sharing AI-generated estimates that put a 1.3% chance of Bitcoin’s digital signatures being broken within two years. Inspired by Woo’s X post, News expanded the experiment, drawing on roughly four AI models and analyzing potential cryptographic threats across four different timeframes.
Woo’s post referenced estimates attributed to Opus 5.5, which placed a 0.5% probability of quantum computing breaking Bitcoin’s signatures within two years and a 0.8% probability of classical mathematics or AI achieving the same. While these figures may seem relatively modest, the potential consequences of...
⚠️ Personal market analysis only. NFA — manage risk and DYOR.
Educational content, not investment advice or a recommendation to buy, sell, deposit, or withdraw any asset. No paid promotion or referral/affiliate links.
🔐 Four AI models were asked to estimate the odds that #Bitcoin’s signatures (ECDSA/Schnorr) get practically broken, inspired by Willy Woo’s Oct 11 post
20-year risk:
🔹 ChatGPT-6 Astra: ~76%
🔹 Claude Opus 5.5: ~66%
🔹 Grok Expert: 60%
🔹 Deepseek Deepthink: 34%
⏱️ 2-year risk: 0% to 2% across all four
All four named quantum computing as the main long-term threat, with classical/AI cryptanalysis a much smaller one (2% to 10% over 20 years).
These are speculative model-generated estimates, not verified probabilities.
#Crypto #Quantum
I spent a week researching quantum vs AI threats to crypto.
What I found:
→ 6.9M BTC already have their public key exposed on-chain
→ The biggest key ever broken on a real quantum computer: 15 bits. Bitcoin uses 256
→ AI-linked scam operations earned 4.5x more than non-AI ones
The real trade isn't qubits. It's who migrates first.
Full breakdown:
مُنشئ مؤثّر
just saw @drakefjustin flag that AI math might break ECDSA before a real Quantum machine does... then watched @Americanfort_io reply with ZKPoSP.
same seed. same address. funds stay put.
the wallet proves it knows the full BIP32 chain behind the existing address using a Hash based Zero Knowledge proof instead of the elliptic curve signature... security assumption moves off the curve entirely.
i keep telling myself i’ll migrate the old wallets one day, then i don’t. most people won’t either. the addresses with exposed keys just sit there.
that migration tax is the actual failure mode, not the math. ZKPoSP treats that as the constraint worth designing around.
node verification still has to land, so nothing is live tomorrow... but the user side has zero new steps. that part feels harder to ignore.
still reading the paper while the Name layer keeps expanding. when was the last time you rotated a seed or moved funds purely for security, not after something broke? @Americanfort_io
AmericanFortress
You may have seen @drakefjustin warning that AI-driven math could break ECDSA before a quantum computer does, and that assets should move to addresses whose public keys were never exposed.
That migration means new addresses, new UX, and years of users who never get around to it.
We published a construction that removes the need for it.
ZKPoSP (Zero-Knowledge Proof of Seed Provenance) replaces the elliptic-curve signing step with a zero-knowledge proof that the signer holds the seed and full BIP32 derivation chain behind an existing address. Address format unchanged. Funds do not move.
The security proof rests only on SHA-256, SHA-512 and a hash-based proof system. No elliptic-curve, lattice or isogeny assumption. The posture Drake is recommending.
QBIP-32, in the same paper, extends it to any prime-order curve with one derivation scheme. secp256k1 and Ed25519, covered the same way.
This was the conversation two days ago at Quantum & Privacy Day, @token2049 Singapore with @MehowHacks, @conordeegan (@QuantusNetwork), and @cadillion (@quipnetwork). The question on stage was never whether post-quantum cryptography works. It was what it costs to ship. Not moving every user's funds is a big part of the answer.
#BlockchainQuantumSecurity ⚛️ Could Quantum Computing Challenge Blockchain Security?
Quantum technology could eventually threaten some of today’s cryptographic systems. Blockchain developers are exploring quantum-resistant solutions, although practical threats depend on future technological progress.
Is quantum security the next major challenge for Bitcoin and Ethereum?
#BlockchainQuantumSecurity
Before the holiday, some thoughts on the recent hacks in the financial sector
Reporters ask me about Bitcoin's price two or three times a week.
One of the bear cases is always quantum computing, and my answer is always the same.
"If quantum computing gets good enough to break Bitcoin, Bitcoin won't be the only problem."
The recent hacks in the financial sector were AI-driven, but in the end the result is the same: the system gets breached.
IT systems are built on cryptography. So when it comes to quantum computing, Bitcoin and every other system carry the same risk.
It's not the time to worry about Bitcoin because of quantum. It's an issue for all of finance.
Actually, never mind... my real problem is getting off work.
gm fam
Went back and checked an old wallet I still control after that piece about AI-assisted math potentially breaking ECDSA faster than quantum computers ever will.
Nearly every proposed fix still ends the same way: move the coins. That almost never happens with long-dormant addresses.
@Americanfort_io put out a construction this week that avoids the move completely. Their ZKPoSP swaps the usual elliptic-curve signature for a zero-knowledge proof. It demonstrates you control the seed and the full BIP32 path for an address that already exists.
Same address format. Coins never leave. Security sits only on SHA-256, SHA-512, and a hash-based proof system - no leftover curve assumption. QBIP32 handles both secp256k1 and Ed25519 the same way.
I keep circling the same point: any real solution for existing holders has to work without forcing a migration. Otherwise it only reaches the people who were already going to move.
The catch is the proof still takes seconds to generate. If a wallet doesn’t hide that completely, the same people who never moved their coins won’t generate the proof either. The limit was always the human side, not the cryptography.
They made that exact point on stage at Token2049. It lines up with the name layer they’ve already got live -different problem, same focus on cutting friction instead of adding steps.
Have you pulled up any older addresses that have exposed public keys and decided whether waiting on a proof makes sense, or are you just leaving them as-is? @Americanfort_io
