Who Will Survive the Quantum Era? The Truth About Ethereum vs. Bitcoin’s PQC Transition

-

※ This article is published in its current form and will be updated to the final Daily Crypto Times (DCT) format in two days.

The Quantum Era Arrives: Assessing Ethereum and Bitcoin’s PQC Transition Readiness

As quantum computing advances faster than expected, blockchain networks are entering a new era where their existing cryptographic foundations must be re‑evaluated. PoS (Proof‑of‑Stake) networks, in particular, cannot avoid the structural impacts that post‑quantum cryptography (PQC) will bring—larger signatures, higher verification costs, and increased network propagation delays. This topic was explored in detail in the previous article “Quantum Shock: Can Ethereum and Solana Survive PQC?” .

However, it is important to note that not all PoS networks are affected equally. Ethereum and Solana share the PoS label, but their security assumptions, validator structures, and network design philosophies are fundamentally different—differences that become even more pronounced in the PQC era.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin, despite being PoW‑based, is not immune to quantum threats. The moment a Bitcoin address is used, its public key becomes exposed on‑chain, and from that point on, Shor’s Algorithm can theoretically reverse‑engineer the private key from the ECDSA public key. This structural vulnerability was analyzed in the earlier article “34% of Bitcoin Addresses Are at Risk — The Structural Weakness Quantum Computers Could Break” .

Against this backdrop, Ethereum researcher Nico recently proposed that “PQC protection can be enabled without a hard fork for about 7 cents per account,” reigniting discussions across the blockchain ecosystem about the feasibility and urgency of PQC transitions.

This article summarizes: how Ethereum can adopt PQC without a hard fork, why Bitcoin faces structural limitations, and when both networks might realistically introduce PQC features on their testnets.

1) Hard‑Fork‑Free PQC Signatures via Ethereum’s Account Abstraction (ERC‑4337)

Ethereum’s ERC‑4337 (Account Abstraction) allows accounts to define their own signature verification logic. This makes it possible to add PQC signature verification at the wallet level without modifying the protocol.

  • Insert PQC verification logic into the smart wallet’s validateUserOp()
  • Use a hybrid model requiring both ECDSA and PQC signatures
  • Enable PQC protection for about $0.07 per account with no L1 changes

In short, Ethereum already possesses the structural flexibility to experiment with and deploy PQC‑enabled accounts long before quantum threats become imminent.

2) Is Hard‑Fork‑Free PQC Adoption Possible for Bitcoin?

Bitcoin, unlike Ethereum, has no account abstraction, and all assets are locked using UTXO scripts. Its scripting language is intentionally limited, making it virtually impossible to verify new signature algorithms on‑chain without protocol changes.

Structural Limitations

  • Native PQC support requires new OP_CODEs → soft fork or hard fork required
  • Possible workarounds include PQC signature hash commitments or commit‑reveal schemes
  • But these provide only partial protection, not full PQC verification

Therefore, Bitcoin cannot transition to PQC without protocol upgrades, and its progress will likely be slow due to conservative governance and consensus processes.

3) Expected Timeline for PQC Testnet Adoption: Ethereum vs. Bitcoin

Most experts estimate that quantum computers capable of threatening blockchain cryptography may emerge around 2035–2040. Based on this timeline, here is a realistic outlook for PQC adoption:

Ethereum

  • PQC wallet‑level research is already underway
  • Testnet experimentation is possible without a hard fork
  • 2027–2030: Likely window for PQC‑enabled wallets to appear on testnets

Bitcoin

  • PQC transition requires protocol‑level changes
  • Consensus and upgrade cycles are slow
  • 2032–2038: Realistic window for PQC‑related soft‑fork proposals and testnet trials

Summary

  • Ethereum → structurally positioned for faster PQC experimentation
  • Bitcoin → slower transition due to protocol rigidity and governance constraints

Conclusion

The quantum era is not just a technological shift—it is a fundamental redefinition of blockchain security models. Ethereum’s account abstraction and smart wallet architecture give it the flexibility to adopt PQC early, while Bitcoin’s reliance on protocol‑level changes means its transition will inevitably be slower.

Ultimately, PQC readiness will depend on: Ethereum’s technical adaptability and Bitcoin’s consensus‑driven upgrade pace. As quantum computing becomes a realistic threat, the decisions these networks make will shape the future landscape of blockchain security.

Younchan Jung
Researcher exploring structural shifts in AI, blockchain, and the on‑chain economy.

If you would like to read this article in Korean, please click the button below.

댓글

댓글 쓰기

이 블로그의 인기 게시물

Ethereum’s Quiet Takeover: How Stablecoins and Tokenized Assets Are Rewriting Global Finance

-
이미지
Ethereum’s Quiet Takeover: How Stablecoins and Tokenized Assets Are Rewriting Global Finance In 2026, the global financial system is undergoing a profound transformation—quiet on the surface, but seismic underneath. At the center of this shift is Ethereum . Once viewed simply as a smart‑contract platform, Ethereum has now become the settlement and liquidity backbone of global finance, reshaping the very structure of how money and assets move. How Ethereum Became the Foundation of Global Finance Stablecoin payments and real‑world asset tokenization (RWA) are expanding faster than ever. What’s striking is that this movement is no longer led by crypto startups. Instead, Visa, Stripe, PayPal, JPMorgan, BlackRock, and Fidelity —the world’s largest financial institutions—are building new financial infrastructure directly on Ethereum. Recent on‑chain data highlights the scale of this shift: Tokenized funds: 31,300 holders Tokenized equities: 21,000 holders Tokenized commodities: 11...
자세한 내용 보기

The Real Reason the CLARITY Act Stalled: A USDC Yield War Between Coinbase and the Banks

-
이미지
3-Point Summary The CLARITY Act stalled not because of regulators, but due to internal industry conflict. The core battle centers on whether stablecoins like USDC should be allowed to generate yield. Coinbase’s opposition to a yield ban significantly weakened political momentum for the bill. The CLARITY Act stalled because the industry itself couldn’t agree on who controls the economics of digital dollars. 50-Second Shorts Video '" style="cursor: pointer; position: relative; width: 100%; aspect-ratio: 1/1; border-radius: 8px; overflow: hidden;"> Watch the 50-second video to understand why the CLARITY Act stalled before diving into the full analysis below. Why the CLARITY Act Stalled: Not Regulation, but an Internal War 1) What the CLARITY Act Was Trying to Do The CLARITY Act is...
자세한 내용 보기

비트코인은 자산, 이더리움은 인프라: 기관이 다시 짜는 글로벌 금융의 판도

-
이미지
비트코인과 이더리움—같은 기관 채택, 완전히 다른 두 개의 트랙 기관들의 암호자산 채택 속도가 눈에 띄게 빨라지고 있다. 하지만 이 흐름 속에서 비트코인과 이더리움이 맡고 있는 역할은 근본적으로 다르다. 비트코인은 기관의 포트폴리오에 편입되는 ‘보유 자산’ 으로 자리 잡고 있고, 이더리움은 글로벌 금융 시스템이 다시 구축되는 ‘운영 인프라’ 로 기능하고 있다. 이 둘은 경쟁 관계가 아니라, 새로운 금융 아키텍처를 구성하는 두 개의 기둥이다. 1. 비트코인: 기관이 ‘보유하는 자산’ 최근 블랙록이 단 10거래일 만에 17,645 BTC(약 11억 6천만 달러) 를 매수한 사실은 시장의 시선을 사로잡았다. 이는 채굴자들이 생산하는 속도보다 더 빠르게 비트코인을 흡수하는 수준이다. 기관들이 비트코인을 반드시 보유해야 하는 자산 으로 인식하고 있다는 강력한 신호다. 비트코인이 기관 포트폴리오에서 차지하는 의미는 명확하다. ETF 운영을 위한 재고 확보 블랙록의 IBIT 현물 ETF는 투자자 수요를 충족하기 위해 대량의 BTC를 보유해야 한다. 기관 고객에게 제공하는 규제된 비트코인 접근성 연기금, 보험사, 국부펀드 등은 직접 보관 리스크 없이 비트코인에 노출되기를 원한다. 디지털 금으로서의 포지셔닝 래리 핑크는 비트코인을 글로벌 거시 자산, 가치 저장 수단, 인플레이션 헤지로 규정해 왔다. 장기적 희소성에 대한 선제적 대응 블랙록의 공격적 매수는 희소 자산을 조기에 확보하려는 전형적인 기관 전략이다. 결국 비트코인은 금고에 보관되는 자산 , 즉 디지털 금이다. 기관은 비트코인을 ‘운영’하지 않는다. 보유한다. 2. 이더리움: 금융 자산이 실제로 ‘움직이는 인프라’ 이더리움은 완전히 다른 질문에 답한다. “금융 자산은 어디에서 발행되고, 이동하고, 결제되고, 운영될 것인가?” 기관들은 ETH를 단순히 사들이는 것이 아니라, 이더리움 위에 금융 시스템을 구축하고 있다. 대표적인 사례는 다음과 같다. JP Morgan — Onyx, JPM C...
자세한 내용 보기