Unlikely. The digital signatures bitcoin uses are regarded as secure, (there could be attacks if we get quantum computers.) The issue here was the software didn't put in enough randomness when generating the keys, and so it was straight forward to search the small space of keys the wallet would generate.
It's not so different if you encrypted a file with a weak password and someone guessed it—you don't need stronger encryption, you need to pick a better password.
The proof of work part of bitcoin is really for "consensus", so everyone agrees which transactions happened in which order, this attack didn't affect that part at all.
Claude has found some weaknesses in other schemes, but not fully breaking anything yet:
https://www.anthropic.com/research/discovering-cryptographic...
The issue is they forked sane GPL code (Trezor's), then decided they wanted no one to be able to copy them in turn so they rewrote components and messed up entropy. IIRC they intended to still use the secure element to generate some but it failed open and had no meaningful tests to detect so, leading to significantly fewer bytes for years.
Tests should have caught that, and it should not have simply failed open during the most critical part of entropy generation.