Bitcoin (BTC) needs to be transferred to a quantum-resistant system because the ECDSA signature algorithm it uses can be broken by quantum computers. Once the public key is exposed, the private key can be inferred, and assets will be stolen.
The difficulty of the transfer mainly lies in four aspects: technically, a soft fork or hard fork is needed to introduce quantum-resistant signatures like Dilithium; in terms of community governance, global consensus is required (refer to the SegWit controversy); compatibility requires the coexistence of old and new wallets, and UTXOs with historically exposed public keys are particularly vulnerable to quantum attacks. Timing is also key: too early incurs high costs, and too late may lead to assets being seized instantly.
Specific transfer plans include:
Introducing quantum-resistant addresses through a soft fork (ideal but complex);
Switching through a hard fork (high risk, possible chain split);
Or migrating externally to a new chain (such as Bitcoin Quantum).
The greatest risk is that early unspent addresses cannot transfer on their own, and cold wallet users need to upgrade manually; a sudden attack from quantum hackers could sweep through all exposed addresses within hours.
Bitcoin core developers have included quantum resistance upgrades in their long-term research agenda, but there are no short-term upgrade plans.
The ideal situation is to complete the network-wide preparation within 5 years before quantum computing poses an actual threat to ECDSA, otherwise BTC faces a systemic security crisis.
