The Bitcoin network has been safe and stable for 15 years. However, elliptic curve cryptography, or ECC, was created in 1985 to protect Bitcoin, and concerns about its soon-to-be obsolescence intensify each year. The emerging technology of quantum computers challenges the network’s security.

Crypto.news discussed the future of Bitcoin in the post-quantum era with Kapil Dhiman, the CEO of Quranium, a Layer 1 blockchain protocol optimized for post-quantum security, AI integration, and Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) compatibility.

How did you realize that quantum computers are a threat, and when did you start dedicating most of your time to finding a solution?

Dhiman: During my consulting days at PwC, I began to see a recurring blind spot: quantum computing. While most of the industry was focused on scaling and interoperability, few seriously considered the existential threat that quantum computers pose to current cryptographic infrastructure, including blockchain.

Early on, I realized that this wasn’t just a theoretical risk sitting decades away. The pace of advancement, especially with quantum advantage edging closer, meant that we needed to act now, not after the breach. By late 2023, it was clear to me that the digital world as we know it, from DeFi to identity systems, could be compromised without quantum-proof infrastructure.

In early 2024, I joined forces with Zeeshan and Yaduvendra to co-found Quranium, a new Layer 1 built from the ground up to be quantum-secure, AI-native, and ready to protect the next era of the internet. Since then, this mission has been my whole focus. We’re not just building a blockchain. We’re building the digital shield for everything that’s coming next.

What exactly is a Q-Day? How much time do we have?

Dhiman: Q-Day is the term we use for the moment quantum computers become powerful enough to break widely used cryptographic systems, including RSA, ECC, and the algorithms securing most blockchains and online banking today.

But unlike Y2K, it won’t be a neatly marked day on the calendar. It could happen quietly; a breakthrough in a lab, or worse, behind closed doors in the hands of adversaries. We might only realise it’s happened after the damage is done. That’s what makes it so dangerous: there’s no global countdown clock ticking toward Q-Day.

So how much time do we have? That’s the unknown. Some estimates suggest by 2030. But even before the hardware arrives, the threat is real, thanks to “store now, decrypt later” (SNDL) strategies. Encrypted data is already being harvested today, just waiting for quantum power to catch up.

The consequences could be enormous. Take Bitcoin: it’s acutely vulnerable. As I mentioned recently in WIRED, the only viable fix would be a hard fork, requiring 51% consensus across the network and a coordinated migration of funds. If quantum capability lands before that happens, Bitcoin could collapse overnight. It’s a ticking time bomb.

People who read about the crypto sector every day, usually associate the threat of quantum computing with cracking their wallets. But this threat stretches to other sectors as well. If the problem is ignored, can we see the banking system getting critically damaged? Or lots of personal data from messengers and social media platforms freely floating online? AI-backed systems going crazy and stuff like that? What is the worst scenario?

Dhiman: You’re absolutely right. Most people in crypto worry about quantum cracking their wallets, but the threat goes far beyond that. If we ignore this problem, we’re not just discussing financial loss. We’re talking about the foundations of digital trust breaking down. 

Think about the systems that run our world today: banking, healthcare, messaging apps, cloud platforms, and AI services. They all rely on cryptographic systems that were never designed to withstand a quantum-capable adversary. If quantum computers can break widely used encryption like RSA or ECC, then yes, banks could be compromised, personal messages could be exposed, and deep systems like national IDs or military comms could be intercepted. It wouldn’t be just about money anymore. It would be about identity, privacy, and sovereignty.

Worst-case scenario? Imagine an AI system trained on poisoned data or manipulated in real-time. Imagine diplomatic secrets leaked from old encrypted emails. Or financial systems manipulated quietly because the attacker had access for months before anyone even noticed. At the end of the day, this isn’t a tech issue; it’s a civilization-level trust issue.

Given the possible implications, it seems that regulators worldwide should react to the emergence of quantum computing. Will the distribution of these computers be somewhat controlled? If this technology is that explosive, will it be as hard to obtain as nuclear weapons? Are regulators around the world working on it?

Dhiman: That’s a great and very important question, and one that regulators are only just starting to grapple with. Quantum computing may not have the explosive visuals of nuclear weapons, but its impact could be just as far-reaching, especially in the digital realm. We’re talking about breaking encryption, compromising national security systems, and even destabilizing the trust models that underpin global finance and communications. 

Right now, quantum systems are expensive, centralized, and limited to a few governments, labs, and major tech players. So yes – there’s still some natural control around access. But that’s not going to last forever. We’ve seen it before with AI and other frontier tech. Once the tools get smaller, cheaper, and more available, the risk multiplies. That said, we’re starting to see regulatory moves. The U.S. has already imposed export controls on quantum technologies, and the EU, Switzerland, and other countries are following suit. There’s no global treaty yet, but there’s a growing awareness that this tech can’t remain ungoverned.

Will access be as tightly controlled as nuclear weapons? Probably not. But we are moving toward what I’d call a managed chokehold; restrictions on exports, funding, and cloud-based access to quantum infrastructure. Think of it as governments trying to slow the spread while they play catch-up.

That’s why readiness matters. Regulators can try to contain the technology, but it’s already out of the lab. The only real defense is upgrading our infrastructure. That’s the future we’re building toward at Quranium: quantum-secure by design, so we’re not waiting for the world to act; we’re already ahead of it.

You told the Korea IT Times that opposing the quantum threat is about technology and global collaboration. Do you see this collaboration happening, and are you optimistic?

Dhiman: Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it more than ever. Fighting the quantum threat isn’t just about rolling out better cryptography. It’s about aligning global priorities. Because let’s be honest, a quantum attack doesn’t respect borders. If someone breaks encryption in one part of the world, the ripple effects can go global in seconds.

I’ve had the chance to speak with people across different regions, in Switzerland, the UAE, the U.S, South East Asia, and what gives me optimism is that there’s a real shift happening. Governments are investing in quantum readiness. Enterprises, especially in finance and identity, are starting to ask the right questions. We’re seeing more cross-border partnerships and collaborations form and Quranium is part of that conversation. We’ve co-hosted sessions like The Quantum Threat: Future-Proofing Finance in Singapore with PwC, and partnered with innovators globally to move this forward.

South Korea is a great example. Their National Strategic Plan for Quantum Science and Technology initiative is entirely centered on international collaboration, not just to develop the tech, but to build a secure ecosystem around it. Their 2023 joint statement with the U.S. also laid out a clear plan for working together on quantum science and cybersecurity. When you pair that with efforts from the EU, India, and strategic bodies like the World Economic Forum and CSIS, you see a fragmented but growing fabric of collaboration.

So am I optimistic? Yes, but cautiously. The momentum is there. The conversations are happening. But this can’t be a wait-and-watch moment. Quantum is moving fast and we need to move faster. If we get this right, we don’t just neutralize the threat, we unlock entirely new opportunities for secure, intelligent infrastructure on a global scale.

Recently, BlackRock warned its customers about Bitcoin’s vulnerability associated with quantum computing. That was probably the first instance when a high-profile company voiced the problem. Do you see big players doing anything else about the quantum threat on top of raising awareness? What big companies on top of BlackRock and Google were discussing the problem?

Dhiman: Yes, BlackRock’s statement marked a turning point. For a traditional asset manager of that scale to publicly warn about quantum threats, it sent a strong signal. It’s no longer just cryptographers or blockchain startups talking about this. The alarm bells are starting to ring in boardrooms.

Beyond BlackRock, we’ve seen activity from companies like Google, IBM, Microsoft, and Amazon. They’re not just developing quantum hardware, they’re investing in post-quantum security standards. Cloud providers, for example, are piloting quantum-safe protocols for enterprise clients. JPMorgan, Visa, and other financial giants are also researching how to future-proof sensitive systems.

That said, there’s still a disconnect. Many efforts are siloed, focused more on innovation and research than on coordinated defense or industry-wide migration. Outside of BlackRock, we haven’t yet seen a collective commitment to adopt quantum-resistant systems. Especially in decentralized ecosystems like Bitcoin, where coordination is difficult, real change will take time.

Have you had discussions with big influencers and what’s your opinion on their awareness and readiness to step in? Do influencers outside of the crypto community ring the alarm?

Dhiman: As for influencers, awareness is rising in crypto circles. Accounts like Coin Bureau are helping to amplify the message and encourage community discussions around protocols like QRAMP (Quantum-Resistant Address Migration Protocol). Outside crypto, though engagement is still scattered. Some commentators like tech commentator Chamath Palihapitiya mention quantum here and there, often reacting to headlines like Google’s progress, but there’s no deep push yet for systemic change.

That’s why Quranium is leaning in, not only by building infrastructure ready for the quantum era, but by keeping the conversation going across industries and communities. The more we raise awareness now, the more time we buy to ensure the transition is smooth, secure, and inclusive.

I’ve seen a survey by Quranium. It reveals that people holding crypto are well aware of the problem and they want to protect their funds but most of them have no idea how to do it. Can you describe transitioning from vulnerable wallets to quantum-proof wallets from the user’s perspective? What can be already done?

Dhiman: That stat you mentioned, “78% willing to switch for quantum-safe security”, really jumped out at us too. It’s clear: the community wants protection, but most people don’t know how to get there. And that’s not their fault. The current wallet ecosystem just hasn’t given users any clear path forward.

From a user’s perspective, transitioning to a quantum-secure wallet shouldn’t be complicated. At Quranium, we built QSafe with that in mind. It feels like any other modern wallet: easy to set up a familiar interface, but under the hood, it uses post-quantum cryptography by default. That means your keys, backups, and transactions are secured with algorithms that can withstand quantum attacks, like SPHINCS+ and ML-KEM.

Users can already take action. With QSafe, for example, the process is simple: Create a wallet, secure your recovery phrase, activate post-quantum settings (built-in by default), and move assets over from your existing wallet.

There is no need to wait for a protocol upgrade or a hard fork. For those still using vulnerable wallets, the first step is awareness, understanding what protects your assets, and whether your current provider is even thinking about the quantum threat. Unfortunately, the survey showed that most aren’t.

What we’re seeing is a shift. People are moving toward using their wallets like banks. But unlike banks, we don’t get to rely on regulators or insurance to back us up. It’s self-custody, which means the responsibility is higher, but so is the need for better tools.

The dormant bitcoins question. Who will be in charge of unlocking the stuck bitcoins? Will they end up being grabbed by quantum raiders?

Dhiman: This is one of the most uncomfortable truths about the quantum threat and one that very few people want to discuss. Dormant bitcoins, especially those sitting in old wallets with exposed public keys and no movement for years, are essentially low-hanging fruit for quantum computers. If Q-Day arrives before a hard fork or a protocol-wide upgrade, those coins can be stolen without any chance of recovery.

So who’s in charge of unlocking them? Technically, no one. These wallets don’t have active guardians or access controls beyond their cryptography. If that cryptography breaks and quantum computers can derive private keys from public ones, those funds are as good as gone. That includes Satoshi’s wallets, which hold about $100 billion worth of BTC.

In that scenario, it won’t be “unlocking,” it’ll be looting. Quantum raiders, whether state-backed or rogue actors, could sweep those wallets. And the worst part? You won’t even know it happened until the coins start moving. The chain won’t raise any red flags because from its point of view, the attacker has a valid private key.

Unless Bitcoin undergoes a hard fork to adopt post-quantum cryptography in time, which is a monumental task requiring global coordination, there’s no central authority to protect those dormant coins. That’s why we keep saying: the clock is ticking. Security by consensus is powerful, but when facing something like quantum, it has to be fast too.

Will quantum computers serve to improve the security of the crypto sector or benefit it the other way? If so, what are the possible use cases?

Dhiman: Quantum computing is a double-edged sword for the crypto sector. On one hand, it’s the single biggest threat to the cryptographic foundations most blockchains rely on, especially those using RSA and elliptic curve signatures, like Bitcoin and Ethereum. Algorithms like Shor’s can break these within hours once we hit the 2,000–4,000 logical qubit mark, and based on current trajectories, that could happen by the early 2030s.

But that’s just one side of the story.

Quantum tech could also strengthen the crypto space if we’re prepared. Take quantum random number generation (QRNG): it creates truly unpredictable keys, which could reduce wallet-level vulnerabilities. JPMorgan and Quantinuum have already shown how this works in finance, and crypto could follow.

Quantum key distribution (QKD) is another example. It’s being tested in places like China for ultra-secure communication over long distances. If applied to crypto exchanges or high-value wallets, QKD could add a layer of defense that current systems lack. Beyond security, quantum computing could optimize how smart contracts are written, tested, and patched, especially in DeFi, where vulnerabilities can cause cascading failures. It could also supercharge fraud detection systems, giving AI tools the boost they need to analyze transactions and flag suspicious behavior in real time.

So yes, quantum could benefit crypto but only if we get ahead of the threat first. If we delay the transition to post-quantum cryptography, then all these benefits won’t matter because we’ll be too busy dealing with the fallout. It’s a race: proactive adoption turns quantum into an ally. Waiting too long turns it into a wrecking ball.