Bitcoin zero-value case challenged over quantum threats and ETF outflow claims

Warnings that quantum attacks and ETF withdrawals could erase Bitcoin’s value face a rebuttal centered on the gap between technical advances and practical hacking capabilities, and on Bitcoin’s role as a store of value.

Bitcoin analyst Joe Consorti challenged bearish arguments from Chamath Palihapitiya and Jason Calacanis in a video on October 28. He argued that potential security breaches and the emergence of alternative investments do not provide sufficient grounds to conclude that Bitcoin’s value will fall to zero.

Consorti pointed to Bitcoin’s private-key structure in rejecting claims that AI could steal Satoshi Nakamoto’s holdings. The estimated 1.1 million BTC attributed to Satoshi is spread across roughly 22,000 addresses, each with a different key, he said. Cracking one would not unlock the others, and better AI coding capabilities do not necessarily make difficult mathematical problems easier to solve.

He also argued that Google’s quantum computing advances do not amount to an immediate threat to Bitcoin’s signature system. According to the figures he cited, Google’s Willow chip has 105 qubits, while Google researchers estimated that breaking Bitcoin signatures would require just under 500,000. He described that gap as roughly 13 doublings and cited an analysis putting the time required at a minimum of 13 years, distinguishing progress in error reduction from practical attack capabilities.

Security research is also receiving funding, Consorti said. A group of nine institutions, including BlackRock, Fidelity, Coinbase and Strategy, committed $15 million over three years to Bitcoin security research, while Galaxy separately allocated up to $5 million to a program addressing quantum threats. He added that those institutions do not control Bitcoin’s rules and that proposed upgrades to strengthen quantum resistance have yet to be activated.

Even a worst-case attack would require a distinction between a severe sell-off and the destruction of Bitcoin’s value, he argued. He considered a scenario in which all 1.7 million BTC in relatively vulnerable early mining holdings were stolen and sold, comparing it with more than 2.3 million BTC changing hands after Bitcoin fell to $60,000 in February. Such selling could cause substantial damage and another bear market, he said, but would not establish that Bitcoin must become worthless.

Addressing claims of ETF withdrawals, Consorti said U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $110.3 million in net inflows on the day before Calacanis published his post, with most of the money going to BlackRock’s fund. He cautioned that a single day does not establish a trend, while arguing that an investment case based on outflows should also account for days when flows turn positive.

Consorti used gold to counter criticism that Bitcoin has little utility beyond storing value. An asset can serve that purpose without widespread use in everyday payments, he argued. He also said Ethereum, XRP and Solana had underperformed Bitcoin that year, illustrating his view that greater blockchain activity does not guarantee stronger investment returns.

He similarly rejected the idea that AI’s growth requires investors to abandon Bitcoin, arguing that expanding AI investment opportunities can coexist with demand for scarce assets. Citing Michael Saylor’s distinction between AI creating abundance and Bitcoin preserving scarcity, Consorti said Bitcoin’s long-term value should be assessed through demand for a store of value and its ability to address security threats, rather than online trends or competition with other technologies.