The growing quantum threat to Bitcoin’s cryptography could depress its long‑term valuation relative to gold, as markets price in a future Q‑Day breakthrough that might break current cryptography.

Approximately 4 million BTC are thought lost today but could become spendable if private keys are derived, with about a 25% chance that the network could freeze these coins via a hard fork—a contentious governance possibility.

Roughly a quarter to a third of the Bitcoin supply has public keys already visible on-chain, leaving those coins potentially vulnerable in a quantum world.

The discussion sits within broader macro themes, including the late stage of a long debt cycle fueling demand for hard assets like gold.

Industry insiders stress there is no immediate doomsday; the transition to post‑quantum security is likely gradual, and some expect states to accumulate rather than sell coins during any reallocation.

Core developers and cryptographers remain divided on how to implement post‑quantum solutions while preserving network integrity and consensus.

Bitcoin’s post‑quantum path is viewed as a phased, multi‑year process with new address formats and upgraded key management, not a single emergency fork.

Mitigation paths include shifting to post‑quantum cryptography, new address formats, and upgraded signature schemes, with changes unfolding over years and depending on market dynamics and governance.

A migration‑based, phased approach is favored, prioritizing gradual upgrades over an instant hard fork to maintain continuity and security.

Some skeptics argue that the observed dynamics reflect normal liquidity cycles and consolidation, not solely quantum fear.

Prominent voices counter the immediacy of the quantum threat, noting decades‑long timelines for practical quantum computers and the ongoing adoption of quantum‑resistant signatures.

Recent large‑scale, Satoshi‑era whale activity is cited as evidence of capital flows diverging from simple consolidation theories.