0 reactions
Quantum Risk in Crypto: Are Timelines Being Overstated?
**Quantum computing timelines are often presented as settled fact. The reality, however, is much less certain.** Some firms and individuals may have financial incentives to downplay near-term risk, while academic researchers hopefully don’t. Researchers may have other biases, but their different incentives generally make their assessments worth examining. Here’s one case to consider:
**Preprint: Quantum Resource Estimation for Breaking Elliptic Curve Cryptography** Lays out conditional scenarios showing how NISQ-era progress could reduce resource requirements faster than older estimates. It presents a range of plausible timelines, including possibilities in the late 2020s and early 2030s. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202509.2429 (full PDF: https https://www.preprints.org/frontend/manuscript/662675b70df5bd2d3481cb18c89ceba7/download https://www.preprints.org/frontend/manuscript/662675b70df5bd2d3481cb18c89ceba7/download_pub)
I’m not a quantum expert, but learning from experts in the field is invaluable. And yes, it’s a preprint. Even so, preprints are worth paying attention to since the field is moving so fast that papers can already be outdated by the time they are published. Definitely an interesting read and consider using an LLM.
It’s worth noting that the preprint relies only on publicly available information. Actual quantum progress is unknown. **Confidential research, government programs, and new startups are wildcards for timeline predictions.** Forecasting becomes even more complex with algorithmic improvements to Shor’s algorithm, several of which have already occurred. Also of note, the paper does not include some of the most aggressive public roadmaps (IonQ, PsiQuantum, etc.), instead using a conservative sampling for forecasting.
ECC isn’t broke tomorrow and I’m not claiming quantum attacks are imminent, but saying “it’s decades away” does not help anyone when credible researchers are presenting alternative scenarios. It’s the confidence behind the claims that’s concerning.
**The key takeaway is the reality of uncertainty.** Quantum progress is real and treating extending timelines as a given without accounting for incentive bias and technical complexity can create a false sense of calm rather than an honest assessment of risk. Not trying to cause alarm or spread FUD, but preparing for a low probability/high impact event should not be swept under the rug.
#cryptocurrency
**Quantum computing timelines are often presented as settled fact. The reality, however, is much less certain.** Some firms and individuals may have financial incentives to downplay near-term risk, while academic researchers hopefully don’t. Researchers may have other biases, but their different incentives generally make their assessments worth examining. Here’s one case to consider:
**Preprint: Quantum Resource Estimation for Breaking Elliptic Curve Cryptography** Lays out conditional scenarios showing how NISQ-era progress could reduce resource requirements faster than older estimates. It presents a range of plausible timelines, including possibilities in the late 2020s and early 2030s. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202509.2429 (full PDF: https https://www.preprints.org/frontend/manuscript/662675b70df5bd2d3481cb18c89ceba7/download https://www.preprints.org/frontend/manuscript/662675b70df5bd2d3481cb18c89ceba7/download_pub)
I’m not a quantum expert, but learning from experts in the field is invaluable. And yes, it’s a preprint. Even so, preprints are worth paying attention to since the field is moving so fast that papers can already be outdated by the time they are published. Definitely an interesting read and consider using an LLM.
It’s worth noting that the preprint relies only on publicly available information. Actual quantum progress is unknown. **Confidential research, government programs, and new startups are wildcards for timeline predictions.** Forecasting becomes even more complex with algorithmic improvements to Shor’s algorithm, several of which have already occurred. Also of note, the paper does not include some of the most aggressive public roadmaps (IonQ, PsiQuantum, etc.), instead using a conservative sampling for forecasting.
ECC isn’t broke tomorrow and I’m not claiming quantum attacks are imminent, but saying “it’s decades away” does not help anyone when credible researchers are presenting alternative scenarios. It’s the confidence behind the claims that’s concerning.
**The key takeaway is the reality of uncertainty.** Quantum progress is real and treating extending timelines as a given without accounting for incentive bias and technical complexity can create a false sense of calm rather than an honest assessment of risk. Not trying to cause alarm or spread FUD, but preparing for a low probability/high impact event should not be swept under the rug.
#cryptocurrency
| 3,000 mlx | |
| 3 | |
| 0 |