Quantum Risk Institute
Bitcoin Quantum Threat Level
Direct answerNO
Today's public quantum computers are not capable of cracking Bitcoin. The Bitcoin Quantum Index currently reads 12 / 100, with overall status LOW and Bitcoin Status SAFE.
What this page is for
The Bitcoin Quantum Threat Level is the canonical public answer page for the Quantum Risk Institute. It is written for people who want a clear answer to a simple question: can today's quantum computers break Bitcoin's cryptography? Our answer is no, based on public evidence available today.
The index does not say that quantum computing is irrelevant. It says that the public capability gap remains very large between current demonstrations and the fault-tolerant, cryptographically relevant quantum computer that would be needed to threaten Bitcoin signatures.
Why the current score is 12 / 100
A score of 12 sits just above the earliest part of the scale. It reflects public progress in quantum hardware, error correction research, logical qubit demonstrations, and algorithmic work, while recognizing that today's systems remain far from the scale and reliability needed for practical public-key cryptanalysis.
The current score is intentionally conservative. Marketing claims about qubit counts do not automatically move the index. We look for public evidence that matters to cryptography: logical qubits, gate fidelity, error correction quality, circuit depth, public key demonstrations, and credible scaling paths.
Bitcoin risk in plain English
Bitcoin's long-term quantum risk is mainly about digital signatures and exposed public keys. In simplified terms, a sufficiently powerful fault-tolerant quantum computer running Shor's algorithm could derive a private key from a public key for certain signature systems. Bitcoin uses elliptic curve signatures, so this matters in the long run.
That is different from saying SHA-256 suddenly fails. The mining hash function and address hashing are not the first practical concern. The most important risk category is exposed public keys and signatures if a future quantum computer becomes strong enough to attack them inside a useful time window.
Current evidence signals
Public demonstrations remain early and not yet Bitcoin-relevant.
Progress is visible, but long reliable circuits remain difficult.
Public demonstrations remain toy-scale or research-scale.
No public evidence of a Bitcoin-capable quantum computer.
What would move the score higher?
The score would rise if public evidence showed sustained progress toward logical computation, better error-corrected operations, deeper useful circuits, and increasingly meaningful public-key demonstrations. The biggest jumps would come from credible demonstrations against progressively larger RSA or elliptic curve keys, especially if accompanied by transparent hardware and error correction evidence.
| Level | Milestone | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 100 logical qubits | Useful progress toward fault tolerance, still far from Bitcoin threat capability. |
| 20 | Tiny Shor key breaks | Research-scale public demonstrations of the algorithm on very small keys. |
| 50 | 512-bit RSA | A major cryptanalytic milestone, still not the same as breaking Bitcoin signatures. |
| 80 | ECC P-256 demo | Public evidence that elliptic curve systems are becoming practically threatened. |
| 90 | Exposed BTC public keys | The Bitcoin-specific risk becomes urgent for public-key exposure and migration planning. |
Related reading
Methodology
How the score is calculated and why the scale is evidence based.
Current Data
Machine-readable status for crawlers, partners, and AI answer systems.
Embed Widget
Add the live Bitcoin Quantum Index to another website with attribution.
Bitcoin Quantum Risk
How quantum computing relates to signatures, wallets, and public keys.
Shor's Algorithm and Bitcoin
Why the algorithm matters, and what it would still require in practice.
Important caveats
This page is educational research commentary. It is not financial advice, legal advice, investment advice, or a claim about classified capabilities. The score tracks public evidence and should be read as a practical monitoring tool, not a promise that risk cannot change.