Capriole: Without a quantum upgrade, Bitcoin could slide below $50,000

Edwards argues that if Bitcoin does not have a workable solution in place by 2028, one that makes transaction signatures resistant to quantum attacks, BTC could fall “well below $50,000” and keep sliding until the issue is resolved.

He ties the debate to a specific schedule. In his view, developers and the broader industry need more than a vague plan. They need a timeline that can be measured, and he points to 2026 as the moment when deployment should begin. Without that kind of urgency, he says, the market may force a harsher repricing of risk, since part of the community will keep treating quantum threats as a distant theory.

The concern usually comes back to Shor’s algorithm. A sufficiently capable quantum computer could, at least in theory, derive a private key from a public key for elliptic-curve schemes, including ECDSA, which Bitcoin uses today. That is why the term “Q-Day” shows up so often. It refers to the point when a cryptographically relevant quantum machine becomes real, not just a lab milestone.

Recent discussion around a “risk date” has been amplified by the Quantum Doom Clock model. It highlights March 8, 2028 as a reference point, suggesting that if progress in hardware and error correction continues, quantum processors could approach a level of logical qubits that would make attacks on today’s signature schemes more plausible. The creators frame it as a risk estimate, not a countdown to an inevitable collapse.

Skeptics call the timeline overly alarmist and argue that banks and government systems would be the first targets, not public blockchains. Edwards pushes back with a practical point: traditional finance is already moving toward post-quantum standards, and institutions can sometimes reverse or block suspicious activity. On-chain mistakes, by contrast, can be irreversible.

Academic headlines have also kept the topic in view. In 2024, researchers reported experiments using quantum methods to break certain symmetric ciphers with an SPN structure. That is not “Bitcoin being hacked,” but it is a reminder that real-world quantum demonstrations are becoming more common, and the crypto-upgrade question is moving from philosophy to planning.

Meanwhile, the market has floated practical stopgaps. Bitcoin analyst Willy Woo has suggested that, during any transition period, some risk can be reduced by using newer address formats (such as SegWit) while the community works toward a full post-quantum path. Michael Saylor, on the other hand, has publicly framed quantum fears as a theme that is sometimes used to market “quantum” tokens.

Over the next few years, the debate is likely to intensify. The difference now is that the timelines people cite are getting more concrete.