Abstract: Quantum computing won't destroy Bitcoin for now, but there are potential threats. Since the computing power of quantum computing is still insufficient to crack Bitcoin's hash and signature mechanisms, its security is currently not at risk. However, Satoshi Nakamoto's one million Bitcoins, which use the early public key format (P2PK), are at risk of being breached by quantum computing. The community can respond to future challenges by introducing quantum-resistant encryption or hard forks to freeze related assets.

Views of @el33th4xor, Founder of Avalanche:
Although the latest progress in quantum computing is amazing, it doesn't yet pose a threat to the security of cryptocurrencies. The reasons are as follows:

1. Differences in computing characteristics: Although quantum computing has significant advantages in specific operations such as factorization, it is still difficult in other operations like inverting one-way hash functions. Meanwhile, the quantum computing attack window is very short, which makes the attack extremely difficult.

2. Design for quantum resistance: Systems like Bitcoin only disclose the hash value of the public key before a transaction, rather than the public key itself, protecting the security of static funds. The public key is only disclosed after the transaction is broadcast, and quantum attackers need to crack the key within a very short time. For example, in Bitcoin, this window is about 5 to 30 minutes; in Avalanche, it's only 1 second.

3. Future defense solutions: Avalanche has submitted a request to introduce quantum-resistant Lattice encryption on GitHub. Although the signature size is relatively large, the technical preparations are sufficient.

4. The issue of Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoins: The "Pay-to-Public-Key" (P2PK) format adopted in the early days poses risks. When the threat from quantum computing increases, the Bitcoin community can consider freezing these Bitcoins in the old format.

Views of Jeffrey Hu, Director of Technology and Investment Research at HashKey Capital:
The Bitcoin protocol can be simplified into two parts: mining (based on hashing) and transactions (based on elliptic curve signatures), both of which may be affected by quantum algorithms:

1. Insufficient current computing power: Attacking Bitcoin requires millions of physical qubits, while the Willow chip has only 105 physical qubits, far from reaching a threatening level.

2. Limited impact on mining: Although the Grover algorithm can accelerate hash collisions, it doesn't break the hash rules but is just like a more powerful mining machine.

3. Signature security: The old P2PK and the latest P2TR need to be vigilant, but hash-based formats such as P2PKH and P2SH are relatively safe. Address reuse may lead to risks. It is recommended to have good usage habits, such as using one-time passwords and transferring assets to safer Segregated Witness addresses.

4. Feasible future measures: Introducing hash-based Lamport signatures or quantum-resistant Lattice encryption can be achieved through soft forks for upgrades.

Views of Hu Yilin, Associate Professor at Tsinghua University:
The quantum-resistant upgrade of Bitcoin may be difficult to be completely solved through soft forks, and there are mainly the following challenges:

1. Risk of old coins: Balance addresses that have exposed public keys may not be able to transfer in time due to users losing their private keys or negligence, resulting in a large number of "resurrected" coins impacting the market. This requires hard forks to permanently seal these old coins.

2. First-mover advantage: The first mover of quantum computers may concentrate on seizing all the dormant coins, which will have a drastic impact on the market, especially if these technologies are in the hands of large companies or governments.

Abstract: Quantum computing won't destroy Bitcoin for now, but there are potential threats. Since the computing power of quantum computing is still insufficient to crack Bitcoin's hash and signature mechanisms, its security is currently not at risk. However, Satoshi Nakamoto's one million Bitcoins, which use the early public key format (P2PK), are at risk of being breached by quantum computing. The community can respond to future challenges by introducing quantum-resistant encryption or hard forks to freeze related assets.

Views of @el33th4xor, Founder of Avalanche:
Although the latest progress in quantum computing is amazing, it doesn't yet pose a threat to the security of cryptocurrencies. The reasons are as follows:

1. Differences in computing characteristics: Although quantum computing has significant advantages in specific operations such as factorization, it is still difficult in other operations like inverting one-way hash functions. Meanwhile, the quantum computing attack window is very short, which makes the attack extremely difficult.

2. Design for quantum resistance: Systems like Bitcoin only disclose the hash value of the public key before a transaction, rather than the public key itself, protecting the security of static funds. The public key is only disclosed after the transaction is broadcast, and quantum attackers need to crack the key within a very short time. For example, in Bitcoin, this window is about 5 to 30 minutes; in Avalanche, it's only 1 second.

3. Future defense solutions: Avalanche has submitted a request to introduce quantum-resistant Lattice encryption on GitHub. Although the signature size is relatively large, the technical preparations are sufficient.

4. The issue of Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoins: The "Pay-to-Public-Key" (P2PK) format adopted in the early days poses risks. When the threat from quantum computing increases, the Bitcoin community can consider freezing these Bitcoins in the old format.

Views of Jeffrey Hu, Director of Technology and Investment Research at HashKey Capital:
The Bitcoin protocol can be simplified into two parts: mining (based on hashing) and transactions (based on elliptic curve signatures), both of which may be affected by quantum algorithms:

1. Insufficient current computing power: Attacking Bitcoin requires millions of physical qubits, while the Willow chip has only 105 physical qubits, far from reaching a threatening level.

2. Limited impact on mining: Although the Grover algorithm can accelerate hash collisions, it doesn't break the hash rules but is just like a more powerful mining machine.

3. Signature security: The old P2PK and the latest P2TR need to be vigilant, but hash-based formats such as P2PKH and P2SH are relatively safe. Address reuse may lead to risks. It is recommended to have good usage habits, such as using one-time passwords and transferring assets to safer Segregated Witness addresses.

4. Feasible future measures: Introducing hash-based Lamport signatures or quantum-resistant Lattice encryption can be achieved through soft forks for upgrades.

Views of Hu Yilin, Associate Professor at Tsinghua University:
The quantum-resistant upgrade of Bitcoin may be difficult to be completely solved through soft forks, and there are mainly the following challenges:

1. Risk of old coins: Balance addresses that have exposed public keys may not be able to transfer in time due to users losing their private keys or negligence, resulting in a large number of "resurrected" coins impacting the market. This requires hard forks to permanently seal these old coins.

2. First-mover advantage: The first mover of quantum computers may concentrate on seizing all the dormant coins, which will have a drastic impact on the market, especially if these technologies are in the hands of large companies or governments.