The developers are not idle in anticipating it, but the current situation has not yet found the best option. However, from the Trezor application, I once discussed on local media that they are ready for quantum. They have created Trezor Safe 7. This Trezor combines a security system between TROPIC01 + EAL6, TROPIC01 is a chip made by Trezor, while EAL6 (security certification). Even the US, through the FEDERAL government, officially bans ECDSA cryptography starting in 2030 with a final deadline in 2035.

On the global sub-board at Development & Technical Discussion, @Pmalek also created a thread titled J. Lopp's Post-Quantum Migration BIP. I also read that this situation seems to be neglected because developers apparently have not taken much action yet. But actually, this BIP 360 Proposal has been added to https://github.com/bitcoin/bips. This was also written by him, @ABCbits, in the Thread Quantum threat ignored by Bitcoin developers.

Recently, there is a BIP-361 proposal that plans to lock old wallet addresses. This proposal contains a suggestion to freeze more than 6.5 million BTC stored in UTXOs that are vulnerable to quantum attacks, including more than around one million coins related to Satoshi. However, this proposal is still under debate and has sparked controversy between two camps. But this step is considered unlikely to save 1.7 million Bitcoins according to Cardano (ADA) Founder, Charles Hoskinson. Even BIP 361 proposer James Lopp feels that this proposal is not entirely regarded as good. But Lopp also thinks there is no better alternative than the one he made.


CMIIW

Sources:
1. https://id.beincrypto.com/bip-361-hoskinson-satoshi-bitcoin-kuantum/
2. https://x.com/lopp/status/2044406134178795748?s=20
3. https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5550298.0
4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2026/02/23/bitcoin-took-its-first-step-against-quantum-computers/
5. https://news.bitcoin.com/id/trezor-safe-7-baru-menawarkan-desain-tahan-kuantum-dan-elemen-aman-ganda/

I don't think this is tinfoil season anymore, but I also don't think Bitcoin should start ripping out ECDSA because a few headlines got people excited. The sensible answer is to work on crypto agility now, quietly and seriously, so there's a migration path before things start to get bad. That means research, standards, test implementations, wallet support, and ugly discussions about how to deal with old exposed pubkeys and ancient coins that may never move. The worst move would be doing nothing for years and then trying to cram a rushed fix through under panic conditions. Bitcoin is very bad at emergency surgery, by design.

Also, not all coins are sitting equally naked here. Coins with exposed pubkeys are the obvious first-class snack if quantum ever gets teeth. Reused addresses and old output types would be the part that keeps me awake, not fresh coins that haven't revealed more than they need to.

So yes, start the work now, absolutely. Just don't confuse "prepare now" with "flip the table tomorrow." With Bitcoin, the boring path is usually the path that keeps the chain alive.

"I do not mind leaving dead btc for a super rich company to grab it all wit a quantum computer"

but what's dead BTC?

Seems to me defining what dead btc is is more important than losing it or safe guarding it.

Have we agreed to a definition of it as of today?

Not so sure that we have.

There have been many projects focused on post-quantum cryptography for years; we're not behind. These studies are being evaluated, and this topic has been a frequent one here for some time now. My thought is that quantum computing is being developed for other purposes, to generate more money for the investment spent on development. It's pointless for such an entity to compromise Bitcoin, and it's not as if everyone would suddenly have personal access to these computers to do some kind of malicious work. Likewise, simply migrating your funds to a wallet and keeping them unused would suffice. I wish good luck to the quantum computers brute-forcing ECC, double SHA256, and RIPEMD160.

In a nutshell the question is what would cost much
Which I believe the former would in the long run
It feels like the start of a compromise to turn Bitcoin similar to how centralised money works.
They would want to make profit
Like good profit
So what's the benefit if everything is lower
Smart is to sell little by little.
I doubt an average person would have access to such level of technology.
Bitcoin doesn't really care about the owner but who controls the key.