One of the long-term technological risks frequently discussed in relation to Bitcoin is the development of quantum computing.Bitcoin currently uses ECDSA and Schnorr to verify ownership of BTC. These One of the long-term technological risks frequently discussed in relation to Bitcoin is the development of quantum computing.Bitcoin currently uses ECDSA and Schnorr to verify ownership of BTC. These
StarkWare Successfully Tests a Quantum-Resistant Bitcoin Transaction: Does Bitcoin Now Have a “Lifeboat” Before Q-Day?
One of the long-term technological risks frequently discussed in relation to Bitcoin is the development of quantum computing.
Bitcoin currently uses ECDSA and Schnorr to verify ownership of BTC. These signature systems are based on elliptic-curve cryptography and are considered secure against conventional computers, but in theory they could be broken by a sufficiently powerful quantum computer using Shor’s algorithm.
The issue, therefore, is not that Bitcoin is currently under attack from quantum computers, but rather:
If a sufficiently powerful quantum computer appears in the future, will Bitcoin have enough time to upgrade?
On August 26, 2026, StarkWare offered an interesting answer.
A transaction using the Quantum-Safe Bitcoin (QSB) method developed by researcher Avihu Levy was successfully mined on the Bitcoin mainnet.
What makes the test particularly notable is that it required:
no hard fork → no soft fork → no changes to Bitcoin consensus.
The transaction was confirmed in block 964,199, turning research published in April into a real-world experiment on the Bitcoin network.
However, this does not mean Bitcoin has become quantum-safe.
QSB is still expensive, requires several hours of computation, uses a nonstandard transaction format that ordinary nodes do not relay, and must be submitted directly to a miner.
Therefore, the most important meaning of the experiment may not be:
“Bitcoin has solved quantum computing.”
But rather:
“Bitcoin may now have a temporary defensive mechanism if the quantum threat emerges before the entire network completes an upgrade.”
Key Takeaways
StarkWare successfully tested a transaction using Quantum-Safe Bitcoin on the Bitcoin mainnet on August 26, 2026.
The transaction was confirmed in block 964,199 without changing Bitcoin’s consensus rules.
QSB shifts an important part of its security assumptions toward hash-based security instead of relying entirely on elliptic-curve cryptography.
This is not proof that Bitcoin has become quantum-safe.
QSB currently requires several hours of GPU computation and experimental costs of approximately $150–$200.
The transaction is nonstandard, so it had to be submitted directly to MARA through Slipstream rather than through the public mempool.
QSB is better suited as an “emergency mechanism” than as an everyday payment system.
StarkWare still believes a protocol-level upgrade or soft fork is a better long-term solution.
The successful test changes Bitcoin’s quantum problem from “can Bitcoin upgrade in time?” to “can Bitcoin build temporary protection mechanisms during the migration process?”
How Does Quantum Computing Actually Threaten Bitcoin?
To understand the significance of QSB, it is first necessary to understand exactly which parts of Bitcoin are threatened by quantum computing.
Bitcoin does not rely on a single cryptographic technology.
There are two important categories:
Hash functions
and
Digital signatures.
Bitcoin uses SHA-256 in many parts of the system, while BTC ownership is proven through cryptographic signatures based on elliptic curves.
It is the second category that creates the larger concern.
A sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm could theoretically solve the mathematical problem underlying elliptic-curve cryptography.
If that happens:
Public key → Quantum computer → Private key
An attacker could generate a valid signature and spend BTC without possessing the original private key.
This is a completely different threat from “hacking the blockchain.”
Bitcoin consensus could continue operating normally.
Blocks would still be created.
Nodes would still verify transactions.
But the layer that proves:
“I own this private key”
might no longer be secure.
That is the core of the quantum threat.
Why Is the Public Key Important?
Bitcoin has one feature that partially reduces this risk.
For many types of Bitcoin addresses, the blockchain does not directly store the public key from the beginning.
Instead, it stores:
Hash(public key).
The public key is only revealed when the user spends BTC.
In today’s world, that is not a problem.
But imagine a sufficiently powerful quantum computer exists.
The process could become:
User broadcasts transaction
↓
Public key appears
↓
Transaction waits for confirmation
↓
Quantum attacker calculates private key
↓
Attacker creates a competing transaction
↓
BTC may be stolen
QSB is designed specifically to address this window of risk.
How Does Quantum-Safe Bitcoin Work?
The most interesting aspect of QSB is that it does not require Bitcoin to understand an entirely new post-quantum signature algorithm.
Instead, Avihu Levy found a way to use components Bitcoin already has.
The design relies more heavily on:
hash functions
instead of placing its security assumption primarily on elliptic-curve cryptography.
The QSB paper describes a construction developed from Binohash, replacing the non-quantum-resistant component with a hash-to-signature puzzle based on the pre-image resistance of RIPEMD-160.
This matters because Shor’s algorithm is extremely dangerous to elliptic-curve cryptography, but it does not create the same kind of breakthrough against hash functions.
QSB therefore attempts to shift the security assumption from:
Elliptic Curve Problem
to:
Hash Preimage Problem.
Signature Grinding: Trading Computation Time for Quantum Resistance
One special component of QSB is signature grinding.
Instead of simply generating a conventional signature and broadcasting the transaction, the system performs a large amount of offchain computation.
A simplified version looks like:
Generate candidate → check → not suitable → generate another candidate → repeat millions of times.
The process continues until a structure satisfying the required conditions is found.
This is why QSB is computationally expensive.
The original paper estimated GPU costs of several hundred dollars depending on conditions, while the mainnet experiment was reported to cost approximately $150–$200 and required several hours of computation.
This is not a design intended for:
buying coffee with Bitcoin.
It is more like:
I am protecting a large amount of BTC during an emergency scenario.
If a wallet contains millions of dollars in BTC, several hundred dollars in computation could become negligible if a real quantum threat emerges.
Why Can QSB Run Without a Bitcoin Fork?
This is the most important technical aspect.
Bitcoin has two concepts that must be distinguished:
Consensus validity
and
Standardness policy.
Consensus determines:
Is this transaction valid under Bitcoin’s rules?
Standardness determines:
Are ordinary Bitcoin nodes willing to relay this transaction?
QSB passed the first requirement.
Bitcoin consensus accepts the transaction.
Therefore:
QSB transaction → Bitcoin block → nodes validate → valid.
No protocol change is required.
But QSB has a problem with the second requirement.
The transaction is currently considered nonstandard.
Ordinary Bitcoin nodes do not relay it through the public mempool.
Therefore, the research team had to use:
QSB transaction → MARA Slipstream → MARA Pool → Bitcoin block.
The transaction was ultimately mined by MARA into block 964,199.
This demonstrates an interesting point:
Bitcoin’s existing consensus is more flexible than the ordinary Bitcoin user interface may suggest.
But Bitcoin Has Not Become Quantum-Safe
This is the most important point when reading headlines about the experiment.
StarkWare itself directly emphasized:
QSB does not make Bitcoin quantum-safe.
The experiment only proves:
A specific construction can operate under Bitcoin’s current consensus.
Millions of other Bitcoin UTXOs are still protected by existing signature systems.
Therefore:
1 successful QSB transaction ≠ Bitcoin is quantum-resistant.
It is similar to successfully testing a lifeboat.
That does not mean the entire ship has become unsinkable.
But it proves that the lifeboat can work.
QSB Is More Like a “Lifeboat” Than a Final Solution
This may be the most appropriate way to view QSB.
Suppose Bitcoin requires a soft fork to implement a complete post-quantum system.
A problem appears:
What if a quantum computer arrives before the soft fork?
Bitcoin’s upgrade process is generally very cautious.
A major change requires:
Research
↓
Proposal
↓
Code
↓
Review
↓
Testing
↓
Community coordination
↓
Deployment
↓
User migration.
This process could take years.
QSB creates an intermediate option:
Bitcoin today
↓
Quantum threat becomes urgent
↓
Holder moves BTC into a QSB-protected construction
↓
Network gains more time
↓
Protocol-level migration is completed.
StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson described mechanisms like this as “lifeboats” for Bitcoin.
The important point is that a lifeboat does not replace repairing the ship.
It simply reduces risk if time becomes critical.
A Major Limitation: Already-Exposed Public Keys
QSB cannot solve every problem for existing Bitcoin.
If the public key of a UTXO has already been publicly revealed, a quantum attacker in a future scenario could potentially have much more time to target that key.
StarkWare acknowledges that QSB does not solve cases in which the public key was already exposed before the protective transaction was sent.
This creates a broader challenge for Bitcoin.
Not all BTC has the same level of quantum exposure.
There may be several groups:
Public key not yet exposed
→ easier to build a migration path.
Public key already exposed
→ higher risk.
Lost coins
→ no owner available to actively migrate them.
The final category is especially complicated.
Lost Bitcoin Could Become a Major Problem
Bitcoin contains a significant amount of coins believed to no longer have usable private keys.
In today’s world:
Lost private key → BTC is effectively permanently immovable.
But in a world with a cryptographically relevant quantum computer, some coins whose public keys have already been exposed could become targets.
This creates a very difficult governance question:
If the quantum threat becomes real, what should Bitcoin do with UTXOs that have not migrated?
There are many theoretical possibilities, but each involves major trade-offs between:
Property rights
Network security
Backward compatibility
Consensus legitimacy.
QSB does not solve this problem.
That is one reason Bitcoin will ultimately still need a network-wide migration strategy.
Why Does StarkWare Still Want a Bitcoin Soft Fork?
Interestingly, StarkWare has demonstrated that a quantum-resistant transaction can work without a soft fork, but the company still supports a protocol-level upgrade.
There is no contradiction.
The two solutions serve different purposes.
QSB
→ emergency protection.
Protocol upgrade
→ scalable long-term protection.
A truly quantum-safe system needs to allow:
Wallet → creates transaction normally
Node → relays normally
Mempool → accepts normally
Miner → mines normally
Hardware wallet → supports normally.
Users should not need several hours of GPU computation or a private submission channel to a miner.
QSB has not reached that stage.
BIP-360 and Bitcoin’s Long-Term Upgrade Path
Alongside research such as QSB, the Bitcoin community is discussing protocol-level options for preparing for a post-quantum migration.
One notable direction is BIP-360, which proposes Pay-to-Merkle-Root.
The broader objective is to create infrastructure better suited for moving Bitcoin toward quantum-resistant spending conditions in the future.
The important point is that Bitcoin does not necessarily need to wait until a quantum computer actually breaks ECDSA before taking action.
Cryptographic migrations usually need to happen before the old algorithm is broken.
This is a question of:
Upgrade before break
rather than:
Break first → upgrade later.
Is the Quantum Threat Happening Right Now?
The emergence of QSB should not be interpreted as evidence that Bitcoin is facing an immediate quantum attack.
There is currently no public evidence that quantum computers can practically break existing Bitcoin keys at the necessary scale.
Therefore, two extremes should be avoided.
The first is:
“Quantum computing will break Bitcoin tomorrow.”
There is no basis to make that claim.
The second is:
“Quantum computing is still far away, so there is no need to care.”
That is also a dangerous approach for a system designed to survive for decades.
Bitcoin is an asset built with a very long-term horizon.
If migration requires many years, beginning research before the threat becomes practical is reasonable.
QSB Changes the Debate Around Bitcoin and Quantum Computing
Before this experiment, the debate often looked like:
Quantum computer appears
↓
Bitcoin needs to fork
↓
If Bitcoin does not fork in time → danger.
QSB adds another branch:
Quantum computer gets closer
↓
Emergency protection may exist under current consensus
↓
Some holders can migrate first
↓
Bitcoin gains more time to implement a protocol upgrade.
This does not eliminate quantum risk.
But it may reduce the binary nature of the threat.
Bitcoin does not necessarily have to move from:
“completely secure”
to
“completely broken”
in a single day.
A migration period may exist.
This Is Also a Test of Bitcoin’s Ability to Adapt
Bitcoin is often criticized for changing its protocol very slowly.
But that slowness is also a design characteristic.
Bitcoin protects an enormous amount of value.
Changing cryptography too quickly also creates risks.
Post-quantum migration therefore creates a difficult trade-off:
Change too early
→ potentially deploy technology that has not been sufficiently battle-tested.
Change too late
→ potentially leave insufficient time for migration.
QSB may be valuable because it could widen the window between these two extremes.
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin’s Long-Term Value?
QSB should not simply be interpreted as a bullish catalyst for BTC.
The significance of the research lies in risk reduction.
One long-term argument against Bitcoin is:
“Bitcoin uses cryptography that quantum computing could eventually break, so it ultimately has an expiration date.”
StarkWare’s experiment does not completely eliminate that argument.
But it provides practical evidence that Bitcoin may have more adaptation paths than previously expected.
There is a significant difference between:
Bitcoin has no solution
and:
Bitcoin has a temporary solution while a protocol-level solution is being researched.
For an asset designed to survive for decades, the ability to adapt to technological change is an important part of the security thesis.
But the Experiment Still Needs to Be Viewed Carefully
There is one very important scientific distinction.
The blockchain can verify that:
the transaction exists and was actually mined.
The blockchain cannot independently prove that:
the construction truly resists every quantum attack as claimed by its authors.
The quantum-resistance properties come from QSB’s cryptographic design and security assumptions.
Therefore, it is important to distinguish:
On-chain fact: the transaction was accepted by Bitcoin.
from:
Cryptographic claim: the construction provides the level of quantum resistance described by its design.
These security assumptions still need further review and validation by researchers.
That is normal for new cryptographic systems.
From Proof-of-Concept to a Practical Solution Is Still a Long Journey
QSB currently answers the question:
“Can it be done?”
The answer is:
Yes.
But the next question is more difficult:
“Can it be deployed for millions of users?”
At present:
several hours of computation
$150–$200 GPU cost
nonstandard transaction
direct miner submission
=
not yet suitable for mass deployment.
Therefore, the next step in Bitcoin’s quantum security is not simply scaling QSB.
It is using research such as QSB to better understand migration options before the quantum threat becomes urgent.
A Race Has Begun
The quantum computing story for blockchain is ultimately a race between two sides.
On one side:
Quantum hardware advances
↓
number of logical qubits increases
↓
error correction improves
↓
ability to run Shor at large scale increases.
On the other side:
Post-quantum research
↓
new signature schemes
↓
protocol proposals
↓
wallet support
↓
network migration.
Bitcoin does not need to stop quantum computing from advancing.
It only needs:
migration to happen before quantum computing becomes a practical threat.
Therefore, the important question is not:
“Will a quantum computer appear?”
But:
“Will Bitcoin complete its preparation before quantum computing becomes powerful enough?”
QSB is a signal that this preparation has begun moving from papers to the mainnet.
Conclusion
The Quantum-Safe Bitcoin transaction confirmed on August 26, 2026, is a notable technical milestone.
For the first time, a construction designed to resist a quantum-attack scenario was deployed on the Bitcoin mainnet and accepted by the current consensus:
no hard fork, no soft fork, and no changes to the Bitcoin protocol.
But this achievement needs to be understood within the correct scope.
QSB does not make Bitcoin quantum-safe.
It is still:
expensive → slow → nonstandard → requires direct miner support → not scalable.
The real value of the experiment lies elsewhere.
It demonstrates that Bitcoin may have “lifeboats” available before a protocol-level quantum migration is completed.
If quantum risk one day moves from a theoretical problem to a practical threat, Bitcoin may not necessarily face a binary choice:
fork immediately or become insecure.
Intermediate mechanisms could allow some holders to protect their assets while the network carries out a larger migration.
In the long term, Bitcoin still needs to solve the more difficult problem:
How can a trillion-dollar network with millions of UTXOs, many types of wallets, and extensive infrastructure migrate to post-quantum cryptography without breaking compatibility and trust in the system?
QSB does not answer that question.
But it has answered a smaller yet highly important one:
Can Bitcoin today execute a transaction designed to resist quantum attacks without changing consensus?
For the first time, the answer does not exist only on paper.
It has been deployed on mainnet.
FAQ
Is Bitcoin Now Resistant to Quantum Computers?
No. QSB only demonstrates that one specific quantum-resistant construction can operate on Bitcoin today. Normal Bitcoin transactions still use existing cryptography.
Did StarkWare Change the Bitcoin Protocol?
No. The transaction was accepted by Bitcoin consensus without requiring a hard fork or soft fork.
Why Can’t QSB Be Widely Used Yet?
The current process requires several hours of GPU computation, experimental costs of approximately $150–$200, and a nonstandard transaction that is not relayed by the public mempool like a normal Bitcoin transaction.
Who Mined the Transaction?
MARA Pool included the transaction in block 964,199 after receiving it through Slipstream.
Does QSB Use STARK Proofs?
No. Although StarkWare is well known for STARKs, QSB uses components already available in Bitcoin and relies an important part of its security construction on hash functions.
Will Bitcoin Still Need an Upgrade Eventually?
Most likely, yes, if it wants a quantum-resistant solution that can be deployed broadly. StarkWare itself still believes a protocol-level soft fork is the better long-term approach.
Why Is This Experiment Important?
Because it demonstrates that a quantum-resistant approach can operate on Bitcoin mainnet before the entire network completes a post-quantum upgrade. This could provide additional options and more time for migration if the quantum threat becomes urgent in the future.
Disclaimer: The information provided here is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, legal, or professional advice. Always conduct your own research, consider your financial situation, and, if necessary, consult with a licensed professional before making any decisions.
市場の機会
Major価格(MAJOR)
--
----
USD
Major (MAJOR) ライブ価格チャート
このページで共有されている記事は公開プラットフォームから収集したものであり、参考情報としてのみ提供されています。MEXCの立場や見解を代表するものではありません。すべての権利は Nguyen Rin Hoang に帰属します。第三者の権利を侵害するコンテンツがあると思われる場合は、service@support.mexc.com までご連絡いただければ速やかに削除いたします。MEXCはいかなるコンテンツの正確性、完全性、適時性も保証せず、提供された情報に基づいて取られたいかなる行動についても責任を負いません。本コンテンツは、金融、法律、またはその他の専門的なアドバイスを構成するものではなく、MEXCによる推奨または支持として解釈されるべきものでもありません。専門家の洞察と詳細な分析については、MEXC 学ぶ をご覧ください。
Major についてもっと知る
もっと見る
イーロン・マスク氏率いるX、ステーブルコインによるクリエイター支払いを検討：USDCでの支払いがどのように機能するか
概要 Elon MuskのXは、CircleのUSDCなどのステーブルコインがインフルエンサーやその他のコンテンツ提供者への報酬に使用できるかどうかを検討している。 CoinDeskは8月20日、計画に詳しい人物の話として、協議が進行中であると報じた。Xは報道時点で、最終的なステーブルコイン決済商品を公に確認していなかった。 この動きは特に重要です。なぜなら、Xはクリエイターの収益化モデルも変更し
2026/08/25
OCCidentalのカーボンキャプチャー解説：1PointFive、STRATOS、そしてOXYの低炭素チャンス
Summary Occidental Petroleum is unusual among large U.S. oil producers because it is attempting to build a commercial carbon-management business alongside conventional oil and gas. The strategy is pri
2026/08/14
OXY vs XOM vs CVX：Occidental、ExxonMobil、Chevronの比較
Summary Occidental Petroleum (OXY), Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Chevron (CVX) all provide exposure to the global energy industry, but their business models are significantly different. A simplified comparis
2026/08/14
Major の最新情報
もっと見る
MEXCオンチェーンデイリーレポート：USDTの時価総額が1,870億ドルに達し、ETHを超えて第2位にランクイン
機関投資家の参入と規制の動向が引き続き暗号資産市場を形成している。TetherはETHを抜いて時価総額が1,870億ドルに達し、時価総額ベースで第2位のデジタル資産となった。米国の議員らが暗号資産課税法案を推進する一方、大手銀行はトークン化の取り組みを拡大した。また、イーサリアムのリーダーシップは長期戦略を再確認し、プレディクション市場は新たな裁定取引機会を求めるクオンツ系トレーディング会社からの関心を集めている。
2026/06/08
MEXCオンチェーンデイリーレポート：英国FCAが小売ファンドに対し暗号資産10%上限を提案
機関投資家によるデジタル資産の採用は加速し続けており、大手銀行、決済プロバイダー、規制当局が暗号資産エコシステムへの関与を拡大している。日本の主要銀行は共同ステーブルコイン構想を準備しており、CircleはcirBTCでBitcoin分散型金融セクターに参入し、Coinbaseはステーブルコイン担保クレジットカードを発行する。一方、AIの統合は企業の主要トレンドであり続けており、SamsungはAIを全事業に展開し、規制当局は拡大するデジタル資産市場を監督するためにリソースを増強している。
2026/06/10
CRCL下落の背景：Russell Growthからの除外とOpen USDの圧力がCircleのステーブルコインの物語を再評価
Circle Internet Group（$CRCL）は、最新のRussellインデックス再構成において、複数のRussell Growth関連ベンチマークから除外されたことで売り圧力に直面しました。このインデックスの変更が重要な理由は、多くのパッシブファンドや機関投資家がポートフォリオ構築の一部としてRussellインデックスを使用しているためです。銘柄が広くフォローされているベンチマークから外れると、企業に対する長期的な見方が変わっていなくても、リバランスのために売却されることがあります。
しかし、Russellの調整は物語の一部に過ぎません。より深い問題は、市場がCircleの公開企業としてのアイデンティティを再評価していることです。CRCLは依然として高成長の暗号資産インフラリーダーとして評価されているのか、それとも金利、準備金収入、ステーブルコインの流通、そして競争圧力に依存する金融インフラ企業として扱われ始めているのでしょうか。
Visa、Mastercard、Coinbaseなどの大手企業が関与する新しいステーブルコイン構想「Open USD」の立ち上げにより、この議論はさらに緊急性を増しました。トレーダーにとって重要な問題は、最近のCRCLの売りが主にインデックス関連の技術的な圧力なのか、それともステーブルコイン関連株の広範なバリュエーションのリセットを意味するのかということです。
2026/07/02
ホット
現在、市場で大きな注目を集めているトレンドの暗号資産
暗号資産価格
取引高が最も多い暗号資産