TL;DR
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Coinbase is urging Bitcoin developers and users to start technical planning for a possible future quantum threat, arguing that network changes and fund migration could take years. The exchange outlined signature systems and practical costs to evaluate, but said its proposals are input to an open discussion, not an agreed upgrade or migration schedule.
Coinbase is urging early preparation for a possible quantum-computing threat to Bitcoin, saying developers should begin evaluating quantum-resistant signature systems before a machine capable of breaking existing cryptography is available. The exchange describes the change as a multiyear undertaking involving network rules, wallets, custody and the movement of funds, but says it has not proposed a deadline or an agreed Bitcoin upgrade.
In a blog post on its technical priorities, Coinbase said choosing a replacement signature system would be only one part of the work. A viable approach would need to protect funds whose public keys may already be exposed, support newly created funds, and allow for the possibility that signature algorithms change again. It would also need to work across ordinary wallets and institutional custody systems while limiting added transaction costs and demands on Bitcoin nodes.
The exchange called for a reproducible evaluation tailored to Bitcoin, rather than relying only on comparisons designed for internet security. It said researchers should measure signature and transaction size, fees, verification work and the time needed to migrate vulnerable funds. Coinbase identified ML-DSA, SLH-DSA and FN-DSA, when standardized, as candidates for assessment, and also pointed to SHRINCS, a compact hash-based proposal. These are options to examine, not systems Bitcoin has selected.
Coinbase also cited P2MR, associated with Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360, and P2TRv2 as possible approaches to Bitcoin’s spending conditions. The company said a design should conceal public keys until needed and permit future signature algorithms to be added or replaced. Coinbase said it is preparing its own systems, speaking with Bitcoin developers and researchers, and supporting open-source work through engineering resources and participation in the Bitcoin Security Consortium. It said it holds about 5% of all bitcoin in existence.
Why Bitcoin Needs Lead Time
Bitcoin relies on digital signatures to authorize spending: a private key grants spending authority, while a public key lets the network verify the signature. Coinbase’s concern is that a sufficiently capable quantum computer could undermine cryptography used by existing signatures, putting some funds at risk. The company did not say such a machine exists or provide a date when it might become available.
The issue matters because changing Bitcoin’s shared rules would require coordination across developers, wallet providers, exchanges, custodians, miners and users. Funds would also need to be moved into any new protection where migration is required. Coinbase argues that technical work can proceed before the threat is certain, reducing the chance that debate or implementation begins only after a quantum capability is demonstrated. The actual risk and timeline remain uncertain.
Choices made for Bitcoin must account for how the network operates in practice. Signatures are recorded and checked by many independent computers, and transaction space is limited. A signature scheme that performs well in general cryptographic testing could still add costly data or verification demands when applied across Bitcoin. Wallet usability and institutional systems matter too: protection that is difficult to adopt could leave funds unmigrated.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Coinbase’s Proposed Evaluation
Coinbase presented its post as a contribution to an open discussion, not a final company position. Its suggested candidate set includes signature standards at different stages of standardization and alternatives based on distinct security assumptions. The company says Bitcoin-specific testing should compare those systems on practical measures, rather than treating a general security benchmark as sufficient.
One complication is the distinction between stateful and stateless signatures. Some stateful approaches may offer smaller signatures or faster verification, but require signers to track which signing steps have already been used. Coinbase warned that state reuse could enable forgery; an old wallet backup or failed update could complicate that tracking. The company said looking at blockchain history would not necessarily resolve the issue, because a signature or update may not have been recorded on-chain.
Institutional custody introduces another operational concern. Coinbase said its signing systems use servers operating independently across locations to support speed and availability during failures. A stateful system could require coordination across those systems. The source report’s account of the blog post does not specify a settled solution to that challenge, reinforcing the need to compare practical implementation alongside cryptographic properties.
“Some questions, including how to handle abandoned or inaccessible coins, are difficult and deserve thoughtful debate. In our view, that discussion can continue alongside the technical work to add post-quantum signature support to Bitcoin.”
— Coinbase
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Threat Timeline and Coin Policy
No deadline, upgrade plan or consensus decision has been announced in the material provided. Coinbase says its post is an input to discussion, and Bitcoin developers have not, according to the report, agreed on a migration design. It is also unclear when a quantum computer capable of breaking relevant cryptography might exist, or which funds and public-key exposures would be most at risk under such a scenario.
The fate of abandoned or inaccessible coins remains unsettled. Some owners may be unable or unwilling to move funds if a new format is adopted, but Coinbase does not prescribe what should happen to those coins. The candidate signature systems also remain subject to evaluation and, in some cases, standardization. Their eventual Bitcoin performance, wallet support and custody implications have not been established.
quantum computing threat analysis tools
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Testing Before Any Bitcoin Upgrade
The next step described by Coinbase is continued technical evaluation and discussion with Bitcoin developers and researchers. The proposed candidates would need testing against Bitcoin-specific requirements, including transaction data, fees, node verification and secure migration. Coinbase says it will continue preparing its own systems and contributing engineering resources and research participation.
Any network change would still depend on broader Bitcoin community review and coordination. Readers should watch for reproducible test results, formal proposals, wallet and custody implementation plans, and discussion of how to treat funds that cannot be moved. None of those developments is presented as a completed decision in the report published October 13, 2026.
Bitcoin signature system evaluation
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is Coinbase asking Bitcoin to do?
Coinbase is urging early research and evaluation of quantum-resistant signature systems, alongside planning for wallets, custody and possible fund migration. It has not announced an agreed Bitcoin upgrade.
Has a quantum computer been shown to break Bitcoin’s signatures?
The source report does not say that such a machine exists or has broken Bitcoin’s cryptography. Coinbase is planning for a possible future threat, whose timing remains uncertain.
Which signature systems does Coinbase want evaluated?
Coinbase named ML-DSA, SLH-DSA and FN-DSA when standardized, and also identified SHRINCS as a candidate. It pointed to P2MR and P2TRv2 as possible approaches to Bitcoin spending conditions. These are proposals for assessment, not selected standards.
What happens to bitcoin that cannot be moved?
That remains unresolved. Coinbase says the question of abandoned or inaccessible coins deserves debate, but argues it can be discussed alongside technical preparations.
When would Bitcoin migrate to quantum-resistant signatures?
No migration date has been set in the report. Coinbase calls the work multiyear, but says its post does not establish a deadline or an agreed network change.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
