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.
Market Opportunity
Major Price(MAJOR)
--
----
USD
Major (MAJOR) Live Price Chart
The articles shared on this page are sourced from public platforms and are provided for reference only. They do not represent the position or views of MEXC. All rights belong to Nguyen Rin Hoang. If you believe any content infringes upon the rights of a third party, please contact service@support.mexc.com for prompt removal. MEXC does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be interpreted as a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC. For expert insights and in-depth analysis, visit MEXC Learn.
Learn More About Major
View More
Solana ETFs Hit Record $1.22 Billion in Inflows: Is Institutional Demand for SOL Accelerating?
Summary U.S. spot Solana ETFs have reached a new milestone, with cumulative net inflows climbing to a record $1.22 billion after five consecutive trading days of positive flows. On August 24 alone,
2026/08/26
Tether Completes First Full KPMG Audit: What It Means for USDT Reserves
Summary Tether has reached a major transparency milestone. KPMG U.S. completed the first full independent financial statement audit of Tether International for the year ended December 31, 2025 and
2026/08/25
Elon Musk’s X Explores Stablecoin Creator Payments: How USDC Payouts Could Work
Summary Elon Musk's X is exploring whether stablecoins such as Circle's USDC could be used to compensate influencers and other content providers. CoinDesk reported on August 20 that discussions were
2026/08/25
Latest Updates on Major
View More
SPCX Nasdaq-100 Inclusion: Why Price, Volume and Momentum Matter on Index Day
SPCX is set to enter the Nasdaq-100 Index effective at the U.S. market open on July 7, 2026. The inclusion marks a major visibility event for Space Exploration Technologies Corp., but the short-term market setup is more mixed than the headline suggests. Based on MEXC SPCXUSDT Perpetual data as of 04:00 UTC on July 7, SPCX traded at 156.25 USDT, down 2.85% over 24 hours, with the price sitting close to the lower end of its daily range. For traders, the key question is not only whether Nasdaq-100 inclusion brings passive-flow attention, but whether price action, volume, and momentum confirm sustained demand after the event becomes effective.
2026/07/07
Franklin Templeton Makes a Major Tokenization Move Into Traditional Funds
Franklin Templeton is taking tokenization beyond the idea of simply putting traditional funds on a blockchain. The asset manager is exploring how Franklin Templeton tokenized assets could be used inside conventional mutual funds and ETFs for purposes such as cash management and securities-lending collateral. The development follows an August 12, 2026 no-action letter from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management concerning the Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund
2026/08/21
RLUSD Market Cap Tops $2B: How Did Ripple Get Here?
The RLUSD market cap has surpassed $2 billion, marking another major milestone for Ripple’s dollar-backed stablecoin less than two years after its December 2024 launch. The growth is notable because RLUSD is not positioned primarily as a retail trading stablecoin. Ripple is increasingly building it into a broader institutional infrastructure stack spanning payments, tokenization, collateral management, custody and cross-border liquidity.
2026/08/27
HOT
Currently trending cryptocurrencies that are gaining significant market attention
Crypto Prices
The cryptocurrencies with the highest trading volume
Newly Added
Recently listed cryptocurrencies that are available for trading