Grayscale head of research Zach Pandl argues that Bitcoin’s biggest obstacle to surviving the quantum computing era isn’t finding a technical solution — it’s getting the community to agree on one. Pandl noted that Bitcoin actually carries lower quantum risk than most other cryptocurrencies, thanks to its UTXO model, proof-of-work consensus, and the fact that certain address types aren’t quantum vulnerable at all. Three options, one hard choice The central debate revolves around roughly 1.7 million BTC sitting in early P2PK addresses — including Satoshi’s estimated 1 million BTC stash, worth around $68 billion — where private keys are lost or inaccessible. Pandl laid out three paths the community could take: burn the coins, deliberately slow their release by rate-limiting spending from vulnerable addresses, or do nothing. He wrote: “All are conceptually doable, but the challenge is reaching a decision, and the Bitcoin community has a history of contentious debates over protocol changes, including last year’s dispute around image data stored in blocks.” Mow warns against rushing the fix Samson Mow, Bitcoin advocate and Jan3 founder, pushed back against calls from Coinbase executives to accelerate the move to post-quantum cryptography, arguing that speed could create more problems than it solves. His concern is that a rushed transition could expose Bitcoin to present-day threats before it ever neutralizes future ones. He stated: “Simply put: make Bitcoin safe against quantum computers just to get pwned by normal computers.” Mow also flagged a concrete technical cost: post-quantum signatures could be 10–125x larger than current ones, massively reducing network throughput and potentially reigniting a debate reminiscent of Bitcoin’s block size wars of 2015–2017. Work should continue, just not rushed Despite opposing a rushed transition, Mow was clear that preparation shouldn’t stop entirely. He said: “Given that quantum computers don’t actually exist and likely won’t