To address the Bitcoin "Quantum Crisis," conservatives and radicals have been arguing fiercely.

Written by: Eric, Foresight News

Anyone paying attention to cutting-edge technology is probably aware of the recent progress in quantum computing this year. This “technological revolution,” which has been called for many years alongside AI, finally saw a breakthrough this year. Simply put, quantum computing has shifted from addressing physical problems to engineering challenges, marking a turning point from laboratory experiments to commercialization. This year has also been designated by the United Nations as the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology.

A technological breakthrough is good news, but the bad news is that quantum computing concerns the survival of Bitcoin. Once computational power reaches a certain threshold, public keys exposed on the network could potentially be derived into private keys by quantum computers, which could deal a devastating blow to Bitcoin.

If discussions about quantum computing previously only revolved around “whether it will affect Bitcoin,” this year’s debates have evolved into “what should we do.” The Bitcoin community has always been fiercely debating major issues—from block size scaling to the Lightning Network, and to Taproot upgrades—each time eager to argue until the sky falls. This time is no different.

Interestingly, the core of this debate is no longer about which solution is better, but about the level of importance attached to the issue. Past debates aimed at improving Bitcoin, but this time it concerns survival. The radical faction believes Bitcoin’s leaders are too optimistic; if urgent action isn’t taken and solutions aren’t developed quickly, irreversible losses could occur. The conservative faction thinks they are overreacting; Bitcoin has always been resilient, and this time will be no exception.

Unlike previous discussions, some prominent figures’ comments this time have risen to the community culture level, sharply pointing out: the Bitcoin community can no longer withstand criticism.

Radicals: “The emperor is not in a hurry, the eunuch is anxious”

The representative of the radical camp is Nic Carter, founding partner of Castle Island Ventures. As Fidelity’s first crypto asset analyst and a VC who has invested heavily in Bitcoin ecosystem projects, Nic’s opinions carry weight in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Nic’s concern is not that Bitcoin developers cannot come up with solutions, but based on past experience: if no action is taken, Bitcoin might fail to implement quantum resistance upgrades before quantum computers mature.

Nic states that many quantum computing companies predict they could develop fully functional, scalable quantum computers by the mid-2030s. The US government’s official standards body, NIST, has already advised governments worldwide to gradually phase out encryption schemes vulnerable to quantum attacks, such as ECC256, by 2030, and to completely stop relying on them by 2035.

It’s important to note these are only predictions; private companies are unlikely to fully disclose their progress, and may suddenly announce major breakthroughs, similar to AI. Nic believes that facing this unpredictable threat, Bitcoin developers should act immediately.

The uncertainty about timing is just one reason Nic feels urgent; another is that reaching consensus on quantum resistance solutions and how to migrate Bitcoin at risk will be a long and visible process requiring years of discussion.

Nic mentions that the SegWit and Taproot upgrades took two and three years from proposal to activation, respectively. The complexity of a “post-quantum” upgrade is even higher. Replacing the core cryptographic technology of the protocol will change nearly every aspect of the system, including how users interact with it. Moreover, if an upgrade is implemented, how should dormant addresses be handled? Freeze the Bitcoin in those addresses, or let the 1.7 million Bitcoins that have “disappeared” be lost forever?

These are issues that are obvious to anyone and will likely take a lot of time to resolve, not to mention the need to give as many people as possible time to transfer Bitcoin to new addresses. Nic estimates that completing all this could take about 10 years. If quantum computing truly makes a breakthrough within that timeframe, Bitcoin’s anti-quantum upgrade must begin now.

What truly worries Nic is not the inaction of Bitcoin developers, but the indifference stemming from a pathological cautious culture. Nic believes that to avoid unpredictable risks, Bitcoin’s upgrade choices are highly ideological—avoiding reliance on third-party libraries and limiting features, including scripting languages. Since 2017, Bitcoin has only undergone two major upgrades, accompanied by significant controversy and internal conflicts, which exemplifies this obsessive reluctance to change.

Conservatives: “I know you’re in a hurry, but hold on”

In response to Nic’s criticism, Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream and inventor of the Proof-of-Work mechanism, appears unfazed. He directly comments under Nic’s post on X that Nic is either clueless about their work or deliberately spreading panic.

Adam states that Blockstream has actively participated in research on post-quantum (PQ) applications, but it’s not as simple as writing a BIP and pushing a “PQ signature scheme.” They focus on analyzing applicability and first optimize hash-based schemes. Additionally, some team members have contributed to security proofs for SLH-DSA (Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Algorithm), one of the post-quantum cryptography standards published by NIST in August 2024, so they are fully capable of solving this problem.

Adam emphasizes that their current task is to identify a secure and conservative anti-quantum attack scheme. Rushing to choose a scheme later proven insecure would cause greater damage. He suggests that Nic’s approach may stem from the fact that Bitcoin developers are very low-profile and do not share their latest research publicly, so Nic might not be aware of recent progress. He also hints that Nic might be trying to spread panic.

The article Nic posted on X is actually a summary of his over 20,000-word research report. Adam’s direct rebuttal without having read the full report has angered Nic, who responded fiercely against this elitist arrogance, clearly stating: “Read it first, then come back and talk.”

Objectively, Adam’s response seems somewhat evasive. He did not directly answer whether Bitcoin could solve this problem if quantum computing makes a breakthrough within 10 years, instead emphasizing their progress and caution. Some commenters, like user BagOfWords, expressed similar views: “The problem is, if they’re wrong, Bitcoin will become quantum-resistant faster; but if they’re wrong, we’ll have to act hastily, and real panic will break out—worse than the panic itself. Honestly, the migration speed is indeed slow.”

Adam responded that “short-term panic would bring greater risks.” It’s unclear whether he means price risks or fears that short-term panic might cause developers to hastily adopt an unproven anti-quantum scheme, but his reply does reflect the arrogance Nic mentioned.

However, Adam’s concern is not unfounded. While quantum computing has entered the engineering stage, its ultimate development remains uncertain. Rushing to update with an anti-quantum scheme now could backfire if it’s later proven ineffective or an overkill, creating more problems. We don’t know whether the lack of urgency among Bitcoin developers stems from technical confidence or other reasons, but Nic’s “early move” attitude seems more aligned with public sentiment.

Industry OG: The Bitcoin community culture indeed has issues

The two figures mentioned above are just representatives of opposing sides. The debate has been ongoing on various platforms for nearly a year. Hasu, an OG researcher in cryptocurrency and advisor for Flashbots, Lido, and Stakehouse, analyzed the root problems of the Bitcoin community through this dispute.

In an article on X, Hasu described the issue as: Bitcoin’s long-standing culture has ensured its core rules are not easily changed, but over time, this culture has evolved into a “refusal to change.”

Bitcoin faces two long-term risks: one is the “quantum crisis,” and the other is the shift to a fee-driven economic model after block rewards diminish. Hasu admits he’s unsure whether these risks can be properly addressed. He believes that the long-standing culture of Bitcoin has begun to make those who point out “problems” or even suggest “improvements” seem politically incorrect.

Although he doesn’t explicitly state the reasons, the author speculates that this culture stems from early Bitcoin’s marginalization by mainstream society. Once recognized, many long-term supporters, the so-called “believers,” fostered a culture akin to religious faith. This culture has mythologized Bitcoin to an extreme, to the point of excluding even a grain of sand, which can be seen as a pathological release after years of repression.

Hasu further explains that this extremism makes gradualists more likely to gain community acceptance and influence, while more radical and bold proposals are increasingly rare. Even in discussions about the quantum crisis, many professionals dismiss it as “alarmism,” and few have actually simulated potential consequences or explored solutions. This attitude aligns closely with Adam’s stance.

Regarding this issue, Hasu offers a very pragmatic solution: first, the “rigidity” of Bitcoin culture should be viewed as a strategy rather than a belief. This strategy can maintain neutrality but should also include an “emergency plan”—defining how much criticism and debate is acceptable when real threats emerge, and how much effort can be mobilized immediately for defense.

Finally, Hasu states that pretending tail risks do not exist will not make Bitcoin stronger; it will only weaken the ability to respond when such risks materialize from the realm of theory. The current priority for the Bitcoin community should be cultural adjustment: how to remain cautious while being resilient and adaptable to anti-fragility at any moment.