Quantum Computers Won’t Break Bitcoin, Says Cooke

The rapid rise of quantum computing revives fears of massive bitcoin hacking. Indeed, Microsoft’s revelation of its Majorana 1 chip, potentially capable of reaching one million qubits, has fueled speculation about the end of the inviolability of private keys. However, Graham Cooke, former Google executive and now CEO of Brava Labs, dismisses these concerns. According to him, bitcoin cryptography remains out of reach, even for the most advanced machines.

A Google veteran reassures

While many investors wonder if their bitcoins are threatened by the quantum computer , in a message posted on social media, Graham Cooke wanted to reassure bitcoin holders : “the mathematics that protect your wallet are stronger than the very fabric of space-time”. According to him, the cryptographic strength of the Bitcoin protocol is widely underestimated.

He illustrates this strength with precise numbers :

• A 24-word mnemonic phrase contains 340 septillion trillion times more combinations than a 12-word phrase ;

• Even with 8 billion people, each equipped with a billion supercomputers, themselves testing a billion combinations per second, it would take more than 10^40 years to find the correct combination ;

• This duration far exceeds the age of the universe, estimated at 14 billion years.

These figures aim to put the advances of quantum computing into a realistic perspective. Cooke emphasizes that the cryptography used by bitcoin is not merely solid : it is mathematically out of reach for any currently conceivable computing system, thus dispelling some of the panic born from recent announcements.

A still largely theoretical threat to bitcoin

Cooke also recalls that despite rapid progress, quantum computers face major technical obstacles. Classical qubits easily lose their quantum state at the slightest disturbance, making calculations unstable.

It is precisely here that Microsoft’s novelty comes in: its Majorana1 chip exploits “topological conductors” which give qubits unprecedented stability, compared by Cooke to “knots in a rubber band: you can stretch or twist them, but the knot stays in place”.

This advancement reveals the possibility of more powerful machines, but is not enough to bridge the technological gap separating theory from the capacity to break bitcoin.

In practice, even with a more stable architecture, reaching sufficient computing power to attack the network would require not only millions of functional qubits but also solving colossal energy and software constraints.

The developments by Google (Willow) and IBM (Blue Jay) illustrate the race for power but do not change the balance of forces in the short term.

While the debate on bitcoin’s resistance to quantum attacks remains open, Graham Cooke’s remarks put the threat in a measured framework. Quantum computing is advancing, but current cryptography maintains a considerable lead. The future may see the adoption of “post-quantum” algorithms as a precaution, but for now, no concrete sign suggests Bitcoin wallets are vulnerable. In this constantly evolving field, who could then save the crypto ecosystem from the quantum threat?