Crypto’s quantum debate is starting to sound less like apocalypse talk and more like a practical engineering discussion. That is a meaningful shift.
The question is increasingly which networks are more exposed, what kinds of workarounds already exist, and how expensive or disruptive those defenses might be, no longer only whether quantum computers could threaten crypto one day.
Bitcoin’s quantum-safe transaction scheme
Bitcoin is a good example of that change. StarkWare’s Avihu Levy proposed a “Quantum Safe Bitcoin” transaction scheme that could protect new Bitcoin transactions without a protocol upgrade or soft fork.
The idea uses a hash-based approach instead of relying on the part of current cryptography that quantum computers are expected to attack more easily.
That does not mean Bitcoin is suddenly solved. This is a workaround.
The cost question
The cost is part of why this conversation feels more practical now. CoinDesk’s reporting on the same proposal says the method could make quantum-safe Bitcoin possible without a soft fork, but at roughly $200 per transaction.
Other coverage of the proposal similarly describes it as too expensive for ordinary daily activity, even if it might still matter as an emergency or high-value option.
So, the debate is moving away from “can anything be done?” and toward “what can be done, for whom, and at what price?”
The XRP comparison
The XRP comparison pushes the discussion even further in that direction. XRP may be less exposed to quantum threats than Bitcoin because a smaller share of its supply is tied to exposed public keys.
Search-result summaries and secondary coverage point to the same basic contrast: XRP’s design may leave a much smaller portion of coins directly vulnerable if quantum attacks on exposed keys become real, while Bitcoin’s dormant and older outputs create a larger problem surface.
So, is quantum dangerous or not?
This progress in the quantum-debate changes how the whole issue should be understood.
Quantum risk is becoming a comparable technical issue, where different networks have different exposure profiles and different response options, no longer just a vague fear.
Some defenses may be immediate but costly. Others may require deeper protocol coordination later.
It is very likely that more projects will start talking about quantum readiness as part of their technical identity.
And over time, those differences may become more important for trust, marketing, and user confidence too, not just for engineers.
The big change is that the conversation is becoming specific enough to measure, compare, and plan around.
Cryptocurrency and Web3 expert, founder of Kriptoworld
LinkedIn | X (Twitter) | More articles
With years of experience covering the blockchain space, András delivers insightful reporting on DeFi, tokenization, altcoins, and crypto regulations shaping the digital economy.
📅 Published: April 11, 2026 • 🕓 Last updated: April 11, 2026
✉️ Contact: [email protected]
Disclosure:This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.
Kriptoworld.com accepts no liability for any errors in the articles or for any financial loss resulting from incorrect information.
