If BlackRock are so worried about quantum computing, why don't they sell all their 275,000 BTC? Issuing a statement about "being worried" while keeping all your BTC means only one thing. Spreading FUD on the markets. Most of the victims of this FUD are going to be newbie investors, who know very little about Bitcoin and quantum computing. I'm sure that Bitcoin is about to change and it will definitely survive the "quantum computers era". Maybe the guys at BlackRock should do more research about the subject, before issuing statements.

Why is BlackRock so concerned about Bitcoin's code, but not at all worried about the money sitting in their bank accounts? Both BTC private keys and fiat account access are protected by the same class of cryptographic algorithms.

If I had a quantum computer, I’d start by cracking bank accounts — simply because that’s where the bigger money is.

For me, it's because any compromised private keys immediately result in irreversible loss, unlike bank accounts that have institutional safeguards like fraud detection and legal recourse.
So for sure, if you are a criminal, maybe you may have a high chance of not getting caught using cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and at the same time having difficulty to success too.

Maybe you are right, but still - I do think first targets would be something bigger than BTC, and what's bigger than said amounts in the banks, even if they are protected, such groups (hackers, etc.) are already hiding themselves good enough to continue to do what they do..

Why ignore something that could bring big profits? As far as I remember, they have been approved for over 400 ETFs so far, so it's obvious that they will try to make money on anything, and BTC is a real money factory for them for now. I don't really think they want to bring down the price this way, they just need to say something, even if it's completely pointless at this point.


Maybe it looked like I was joking about the hard fork, but when the spot BTC ETF was approved, information came out in which they made a statement about the hard fork - and if my memory serves me well, they wrote something like "in the case of a hard fork, BR will not necessarily follow the chain that the majority (crypto community) will follow", which implies that they will support what is in their interest - and when we add to that that they bought majority shares in the biggest BTC mining companies, things don't look very good for BTC.

I've fixed it. Thanks for mentioning it.


1. How do you know bank actually use ECDSA/secp256k1 that used by Bitcoin?
2. Unlike Bitcoin, bank theoretically can reverse the transaction and freeze involved bank account.

if people do not want to be situationally aware(so they know what to look out for should worse case happens).. usually the worse case does happen and people act surprised and upset after the fact
EG most people are not situationally aware that core is trying to depreciate the utility of legacy keys..

if people want to remain complacent and think bitcoin is utopia, they become complacent to not review code, become complacent to just blind trust core dev decisions which affect bitcoin(which affect everyone)

the whole point of bitcoin is that it should be decentralised and also peer reviewed independently and developed/upgraded independently via the masses. if people just want to dismiss the issues. the issues can get worse

i am a bitcoin maximalist. i adore and have a good hoard of coin for well over a decade.. and yet im a realist to know the risks, and i ensure i highlight the risks so that it is no surprise when or if things happen
(mentioning in 2016 (pre-segwit) how segwit will cause bloated unvalidated junk to be on the blockchain.. fastforward 2023.. 'ordinals' crap proved it)

blackrock are the same they are not naive to the risks, and also they have to legally make statements of risks for their own customers risk mitigation/management/liability stuff. they cant just do the fluffy cloud utopian promotion when they have legal obligations

people should not just dream of the fluffy cloud utopian dreams but keep their feet in reality and try to be part of mitigating the risks that can affect bitcoin, or atleast be aware of the risks so they can react to changes before they become a negative effect on bitcoin.

I mean, they're not wrong. But according to the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, there are already discussions about a new quantum-resistant address type.

I do not think that SHA256d blocks are going to be broken by quantum computers, but in case it ever becomes a threat that people can suddenly pre-mine 100,000s of blocks, then I would see a soft fork in the style of Segwit on the table.

This risk assessment is kind of obligatory to be disclosed to their customer so it's not really a FUD just acknowledgement of the risk.
I'm sure quantum computer affect other, not only bitcoin, if they were to risk assess other tech company that rely on encryption all of them will be flawed when QC is functional.