Bitcoin faces an inevitable challenge: the arrival of quantum computers capable of breaking its ECDSA signatures. The only paths to survival are a protocol upgrade or a migration. Both are hard. Each existing option fails on at least one critical axis.Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.qbtc.net/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
The design space
There are five ways to give Bitcoin holders access to quantum-safe storage:- Soft-fork Bitcoin to add post-quantum signatures (e.g., a PQ-aware Taproot variant such as BIP-360).
- Hard-fork Bitcoin to require post-quantum signatures for all spends and re-mine dormant exposed-key UTXOs.
- Bridge BTC to a quantum-safe chain via a custodian or multisig.
- Wrap BTC as a token on a quantum-safe smart-contract platform.
- Mirror Bitcoin’s UTXO set on a quantum-safe parallel chain, with claims gated by ZK proofs. (QBTC’s choice.)
Why not a soft fork
A soft fork is the more likely path for the Bitcoin community, embedding post-quantum verification into Taproot scripts. The approach has severe problems:- Bitcoin’s block space was not sized for PQ signatures. ML-DSA-65 signatures are about 3.3 KB versus 70 bytes for ECDSA. Adding them to Bitcoin means roughly a 47× expansion of signature data inside a block-space budget that has been politically immovable for a decade. QBTC, by contrast, was built for ML-DSA from genesis; the chain’s bandwidth, storage, and fee market were sized for PQ signatures from day one rather than retrofitted into a constrained format.
- Activation takes years Bitcoin may not have. BIP discussion, soft-fork signaling, miner activation, and user migration each compound. Realistic timelines run 5 to 10 years, on a clock set by a CRQC arrival window that published assessments place between 2029 and 2035. QBTC ships its post-quantum migration on its own schedule, ahead of CRQC, without needing Bitcoin’s social consensus to move first.
- The largest pool of at-risk BTC is structurally unfixable by soft fork. Satoshi-era P2PK balances (~1.7M BTC that has never moved) and reused-address coins with on-chain public keys cannot defend themselves under any soft-fork scheme: there is no signer to migrate them. They remain spendable by whoever runs Shor’s algorithm first. QBTC’s governance reclamation is the only mechanism in the design space that addresses this category, by removing that value from the quantum attacker’s reach on a separate ledger rather than touching the coins on Bitcoin. Per-category breakdown: indexer.qbtc.net.
- Consensus fractures. A soft fork that quietly leaves dormant coins exposed will not satisfy the holders who want them protected; a soft fork that touches them will not pass. Either outcome fractures Bitcoin’s social consensus. QBTC sidesteps the dilemma: Bitcoin’s rules are unchanged, and the protection happens elsewhere for holders who opt in.
Why not a hard fork
A Bitcoin hard fork that requires post-quantum signatures for all future spends, and re-mines dormant exposed UTXOs into safe addresses, would technically solve the problem. It will not happen on Bitcoin Legacy. The social consensus does not accept hard forks that change the rules in ways that affect existing holders’ coins, even to protect them. Every prior attempt has failed or split off. A hard fork that re-allocates dormant Satoshi-era UTXOs would be the most contentious change in Bitcoin’s history, and it would impose that change on every holder, including those who reject the migration. QBTC performs the hard-fork-equivalent migration on a separate chain, so Bitcoin’s consensus is never touched and no holder is forced to participate. Holders who want quantum safety opt in. Holders who don’t, don’t. The reclamation of dormant exposed-key UTXOs happens only in QBTC’s mirror; on Bitcoin, those coins remain exactly where they are, governed by exactly the rules they have today.Why not a bridge
A bridge moves BTC into a quantum-safe chain by locking it under a custodian or multisig. This has been done many times (wBTC, sBTC, tBTC, and others). Bridges fail for several reasons:- They reintroduce custodial risk, and the custody itself is quantum-vulnerable. The thing protecting your BTC is now a multisig signed with ECDSA keys. Quantum capability that breaks Bitcoin breaks the bridge custodians’ keys at the same moment. QBTC has no custodian and no peg: your BTC stays on Bitcoin, under your own keys, until you choose to exercise the entitlement with a ZK proof. There is no honeypot to attack.
- They lock your BTC to use the destination chain. A bridge requires you to surrender custody of the underlying BTC to mint the wrapped version. With QBTC, you keep your BTC on Bitcoin and hold QBTC after claiming. The claim does not move or lock the underlying coin.
- They are not universal and cannot protect inactive holders. Bridges typically support a subset of address types and require interactive participation, paying fees and trusting the operator. Dormant exposed-key UTXOs whose owners are unreachable cannot be bridged at all. QBTC’s user claim is also opt-in, but the protocol additionally provides a non-user path (governance reclamation) for exactly the category of coins no opt-in mechanism can save.
Why not a wrapped asset
Wrapping BTC as a token on another chain (Ethereum, a Cosmos chain, etc.) inherits all the problems of bridges. It adds another: the wrapped token’s security depends on the host chain’s security model, which may itself be quantum-vulnerable. QBTC is a sovereign chain with its own ML-DSA-secured validator set, mirroring Bitcoin’s UTXO state without depending on any other chain’s consensus.What QBTC does instead: mirror, then claim
QBTC executes the Hard Fork now, before quantum computers reach scale, on a separate ledger. From day one, QBTC uses ML-DSA signatures at the consensus layer. Every Bitcoin UTXO has a 1:1 entitlement in QBTC’s mirror, claimable by zero-knowledge proof.- The mirror tracks Bitcoin’s UTXO set continuously. Every live BTC UTXO has a corresponding QBTC entitlement of equal size.
- The mirror updates with every new Bitcoin block. New UTXOs add new entitlements. Spent UTXOs are reconciled. Whoever currently controls a Bitcoin UTXO controls the corresponding QBTC entitlement.
- A holder exercises an entitlement by submitting a zero-knowledge proof of ownership, which verifies they control the BTC private key without ever broadcasting the public key.
- Governance, on a roughly two-week voting cadence, reclaims dormant exposed-key BTC UTXOs older than 17 years and redirects the corresponding QBTC into accounts that secure the migration.
| Property | QBTC | Soft fork | Hard fork | Bridge | Wrapped |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Does not touch Bitcoin | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Allocates to every BTC UTXO | Yes | No | Yes | No | No |
| Protects dormant exposed-key coins | Yes (reclaim) | No | Maybe | No | No |
| Migration is itself quantum-safe | Yes (ZK proof) | Partial | Yes | No (ECDSA bridge keys) | No |
| No custodian, no peg | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Holder controls timing | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Available before CRQC arrives | Yes | No (too slow) | No | Yes | Yes |