Blockstream CEO Adam Back, an early crypto pioneer, said Bitcoin developers should begin building quantum-resistant options now even if a practical quantum threat is decades away. Speaking at Paris Blockchain Week, Back stressed that current quantum systems remain largely lab experiments and that progress has been incremental over the past 25 years. Still, he argued, “Bitcoin should prepare,” favoring optional upgrades that enable migration to quantum-resistant cryptography if needed.
Concerns that future quantum computers could break blockchain cryptography and steal funds have fueled industry debate. Back has previously estimated the quantum threat at roughly 20 to 40 years away and told Bloomberg this month that today’s quantum machines are slower than calculators. Nonetheless, Blockstream maintains a dedicated quantum team examining potential attack vectors against Bitcoin and has implemented hash-based signatures on its Liquid layer-2 network as part of that work. Back also noted Taproot could accommodate alternative signature schemes without disrupting current users. “Preparation is key. Making changes in a controlled way is far safer than reacting in a crisis,” he said.
Recent research from Google and Caltech has suggested functional quantum computers could arrive sooner than expected and that far less power might be required to break cryptography. Google warned that quantum devices might one day compromise Bitcoin’s cryptography rapidly, enabling “on-spend” attacks. Asked how developers would respond if the threat accelerated, Back said they would “act quickly,” pointing to past rapid fixes when urgency demands attention. “We’ve seen that before — bugs have been identified and fixed within hours. When something becomes urgent, it focuses attention and drives consensus.”
A separate proposal by Bitcoin developer Jameson Lopp and five researchers — BIP-361 — would freeze quantum-vulnerable coins, including Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated $81.9 billion holdings, to prevent theft once quantum computers become capable. The idea drew strong criticism from parts of the Bitcoin community; developer Mark Erhardt called it “authoritarian and confiscatory,” and Phil Geiger said it would amount to stealing people’s money to prevent theft.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy