Updated October 17, 2026: This article, originally published September 13, now includes Coinbase’s October 13 technical discussion and the scope of draft BIP 360.
Coinbase has put more specific engineering and custody criteria behind its work on Bitcoin’s post-quantum readiness. Its October 13 discussion outlines how possible output designs, signature systems and migration procedures could be evaluated, following the Stanford workshop described in September.
The company calls the new post input to an open discussion, rather than its final position. The reviewed documents do not establish an activated upgrade, a selected Bitcoin-wide migration plan or a deadline for holders to move funds.
What Coinbase wants evaluated
In Working Together on Bitcoin’s Post-Quantum Readiness, Coinbase discusses flexible output approaches including P2MR/BIP 360 and P2TRv2. It also considers a possible 1-of-2 spending path combining classical and post-quantum options, and stateless alternatives if stateful signatures are used. These are design possibilities, not announced deployments.
Coinbase’s evaluation criteria extend beyond the cryptographic algorithm. It wants deterministic, cross-platform, constant-time implementations, resilience to signing random-number-generator failures, and compatibility with multiparty computation, or MPC, used in institutional signing arrangements.
The proposed tests include spend and signature size, verification time and tail latency, signing throughput and migration throughput. Hardware wallets and hardware security modules also need support. Coinbase includes the costs borne by validating nodes and block propagation in that assessment.
Those requirements explain why choosing a signature scheme would answer only part of the migration question. A design must also fit the devices, software and operating procedures that would use it.
BIP 360 is a draft with a specific scope
A concrete proposal already exists. BIP 360’s Pay-to-Merkle-Root specification, checked October 17, is labeled Draft, version 0.12.1. It was assigned in 2024; it is not a new consequence of the September workshop.
P2MR proposes removing Taproot’s key-path spend to address long-exposure quantum attacks. The specification does not introduce a post-quantum signature scheme, and P2MR alone does not protect against short-exposure attacks. It also identifies compatibility work for older wallets and nodes.
Its existence therefore changes the question from whether a proposal will appear to how proposals perform, what they protect and what additional work they require. Draft status is not evidence of activation or adoption.
The Stanford workshop remains the starting context
Coinbase’s September 9 workshop account described a session convened with Stanford cryptographer Dan Boneh and Localhost Research. Developers, cryptographers, custodians and hardware-wallet specialists compared signatures, output types, device constraints and migration options.
According to that account, participants did not reach consensus on a best approach or select a solution. Coinbase characterized the risk as non-immediate while emphasizing that its timing is unknown. That is the company’s assessment, not a measured countdown or an independent finding about every quantum-computing system.
NIST’s post-quantum guidance likewise describes a future threat that may be years or decades away and recommends starting migration work. Its first finalized standards in 2024 provide broader cryptographic context; they do not choose Bitcoin’s protocol design.
Migration needs a path for funds and custody systems
Coinbase’s October discussion includes migration capacity and a path for funds that move late or are inaccessible. That brings institutional signing systems and the treatment of older funds into the design process, rather than leaving them as implementation details after an algorithm is chosen.
A useful comparison is the Ethereum Foundation’s September 7 priorities: it set a self-imposed target of L1 quantum resistance by December 2029, subject to reassessment in January 2027. That is a target, not a guarantee or a Bitcoin timetable.
The next meaningful evidence for Bitcoin would include security analyses, comparative benchmarks, device support, tested migration throughput and explicit rules for older funds. The October post makes Coinbase’s proposed evaluation framework clearer. It does not, by itself, settle those choices or issue an immediate action notice to Bitcoin holders.
Investment disclaimer: This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute investment, financial, legal or tax advice. Digital assets are volatile, and all investment decisions and their consequences are your own responsibility.