“Quantum” Claim Debunked as Just a Brute Force Attack on Bitcoin

• Bitcoin quantum claim faces doubt as tests show identical results using simple random data.
• Replication reveals Bitcoin’s “quantum” method behaves like brute force, not a true cryptographic breakthrough.
• Small key size used in tests highlights no real threat to Bitcoin security or encryption standards.

A claimed quantum breakthrough targeting Bitcoin’s cryptography is drawing immediate skepticism, with analysts saying the result shows no measurable quantum advantage. On-chain analyst Checkmate dismissed the claim on X, writing, “It’s nonsense, the quantum part can be swapped for a random number generator and get the same results.”

Independent developer Yuval Adam replicated the method using random data in place of quantum output and recovered identical keys. The test suggests the result relies on classical brute-force techniques rather than any quantum computation.

Reproducing Results Without Quantum Hardware

Yuval Adam tested the method after Project Eleven awarded 1 BTC to Giancarlo Lelli for recovering a 15-bit elliptic curve key using IBM quantum systems. Adam replaced the quantum output with random bytes from /dev/urandom and ran the same process.

He said, “I forked the winning repo, removed the calls to IBM quantum, and replaced it with random bytes,” adding that “Every recovered key is byte-identical to what the author reports.” The result suggests the system does not rely on quantum computation.

Adam’s analysis points to a probabilistic process rather than a quantum one. The pipeline accepts random guesses that satisfy a verification step, meaning repeated attempts can eventually recover the key. He noted, “With enough random guesses, one always will,” indicating the outcome aligns with classical brute-force behavior.

What It Means for Bitcoin Security

The test involved extremely small keys compared with Bitcoin’s 256-bit standard, limiting its real-world relevance. A 15-bit key has just 32,767 possible combinations, a range even basic computers can exhaust quickly. The gap underscores how far the demonstration sits from threatening Bitcoin’s cryptographic security.

Checkmate echoed that view, saying the result highlights what “Bitcoin protects against.” Yuval Adam was more direct, writing, “This is not progress on quantum cryptanalysis,” and describing the method as “a classical brute-force search with an expensive random number generator.”

Even so, the broader quantum race continues to advance. Companies, including Google, are targeting a transition to post-quantum cryptography by 2029, while research estimates suggest breaking Bitcoin could require thousands to hundreds of thousands of qubits.

Developers are already preparing for that scenario. Proposals such as BIP-360 and BIP-361 aim to introduce quantum-resistant transaction formats and phase out older signature schemes. Ethereum developers are also exploring similar upgrades, reflecting growing industry focus on long-term quantum risk despite disputed claims like this one.

Related: Project Eleven’s Bitcoin Prize Triggers Fight Over Claimed Quantum Break of ECC