Bitcoin and Ethereum Post-Quantum Wallet Upgrades Remain Works in Progress
Bitcoin and Ethereum holders still lack a fully released, native post-quantum wallet solution as of Oct. 22, 2026, despite ongoing development of quantum-resistant technologies across both networks. Bitcoin's proposed BIP-360 output structure remains a draft, while Ethereum can already support custom signature verification through smart contracts, although its proposed native alternative to elliptic-curve authentication is also unfinished.
The key difference lies in how each blockchain could introduce protection. Bitcoin's BIP-360 proposal would require a soft fork to change spending conditions. Ethereum's programmable accounts can implement alternative verification methods without a protocol-wide hard fork, but existing accounts may retain authority through their original cryptographic keys.
These developments also highlight the distinction between experimental code, successful test transactions and features available in production wallets. The SPHINCS- Ethereum research implementation documents test deployments but warns that its unaudited code is “not safe to use with real funds.” Bitcoin Core's released wallet likewise does not offer a post-quantum address or signing option.
Bitcoin BIP-360 Changes Spending Conditions, Not Signatures
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360, known as Pay-to-Merkle-Root or P2MR, proposes removing Taproot's key-path spending option in favor of a tree of spending scripts. The design aims to reduce exposure to attacks against public keys that remain visible for extended periods.
However, BIP-360 does not introduce a post-quantum signature scheme. The proposal also leaves further work necessary to protect against attacks during the period when a spending transaction exposes a public key before confirmation.
This distinction separates P2MR from SHRINCS, a draft hash-based signature scheme intended to authorize Bitcoin transactions. Neither a published specification nor reference code changes the rules governing existing Bitcoin holdings. BIP-360 includes test vectors and a Python implementation, but one test still requires a secp256k1 signature.
Production deployment would require agreement on validation rules and wallet software capable of creating, signing and recovering funds held under the new spending conditions.
Bitcoin Core's 31.0 wallet documentation lists legacy, wrapped SegWit, native SegWit and Taproot address types. The subsequent 31.1 release adds fixes but does not introduce P2MR or post-quantum signing.
Ethereum Supports Custom Verification Through Smart Accounts
Ethereum has a different development path because smart accounts can implement custom authorization logic. The SPHINCS- research project provides verifiers that run as ordinary Ethereum Virtual Machine code, without requiring a new protocol feature.
Its deployment documentation distinguishes Sepolia test transactions from EIP-8141 frame transactions conducted on the ethrex privacy testnet. These experiments do not constitute activation of EIP-8141 on Ethereum mainnet or the release of a production-ready wallet.
EIP-8141 remains labeled Draft. The proposal introduces frame transactions that allow code to define transaction validation and fee payment, with its authors describing the design as a native route away from elliptic-curve authentication. The released Geth v1.17.9 transaction decoder does not accept the proposed transaction type.
The Ethereum Foundation's post-quantum team has described account abstraction and specialized verification features as part of its execution-layer strategy. However, its roadmap remains subject to research and open governance, rather than guaranteeing that existing wallets can already migrate to post-quantum protection.
Testing validator signatures is also distinct from changing the authorization mechanism that controls an individual holder's funds.
Hardware Support Does Not Automatically Protect Existing Wallets
Hardware-level cryptographic support represents another separate part of the transition. Ledger says it has implemented ML-DSA signing in its software development kit. That provides developers with cryptographic functionality, but it does not change the signatures accepted by Bitcoin or an Ethereum account.
Background research cited in The Defiant's Willow report distinguishes quantum experiments from modeled attacks against cryptographic keys. Its reporting on curve origins addresses public parameters, while its ECDSA explainer covers signature generation and verification.
Existing Ethereum externally owned accounts face an additional limitation: adding contract logic does not, by itself, eliminate the authority of the original classical key. Under EIP-7702, a valid authorization from that key can replace or clear an account's delegation, and a delegated account can still initiate ordinary transactions.
For holders on both networks, the central distinction remains between research and deployable protection. New cryptographic algorithms, testnet demonstrations and hardware signing capabilities do not automatically change the rules or wallet features governing existing funds.
source: thedefiant
Writer: Ethan Collins
Crypto Journalist
Ethan Collins reports on developments across the cryptocurrency and blockchain sector. His work covers market movements, protocol updates, regulatory changes, and emerging trends in digital assets.
He focuses on presenting complex topics in a clear and accessible manner for a broad readership.
Check out other news and articles on Google News
Disclaimer:
The articles on Hokanews are here to keep you updated on the latest buzz in crypto, tech, and beyond—but they’re not financial advice. We’re sharing info, trends, and insights, not telling you to buy, sell, or invest. Always do your own homework before making any money moves.
Hokanews isn’t responsible for any losses, gains, or chaos that might happen if you act on what you read here. Investment decisions should come from your own research—and, ideally, guidance from a qualified financial advisor. Remember: crypto and tech move fast, info changes in a blink, and while we aim for accuracy, we can’t promise it’s 100% complete or up-to-date.