Adam Back Addresses Quantum Computing Risks to Bitcoin

TLDR

• Adam Back claims quantum threats to Bitcoin are decades away.
• Current fears about quantum computing are exaggerated, he argues.
• No immediate changes to Bitcoin protocols are needed for quantum risks.

Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream and an early Bitcoin contributor, recently criticized a venture capitalist within the cryptocurrency community. Back addressed what he referred to as “uninformed noise” concerning the potential risks posed by quantum computing to Bitcoin. According to Back, the threat of quantum computers capable of compromising Bitcoin’s security is still decades away.

Back emphasized that significant research and development issues need to be addressed before quantum computing can threaten Bitcoin. He described the current fear surrounding this technology as exaggerated. On his Twitter account, Back stated, “the risks are short term NIL,” asserting that it is still “ridiculously early” to consider quantum computers as a threat to Bitcoin.

Industry Influence and Background

Adam Back is a well-respected figure in the cryptocurrency space, known for co-founding Blockstream and for his early contributions to Bitcoin. He is also credited with inventing Hashcash, the proof-of-work system utilized in Bitcoin’s design. Back is frequently cited in Bitcoin security discussions and protocol design considerations.

The venture capitalist he referred to has not been identified in primary sources, but the criticism is aimed at their public emphasis on quantum risks. It is likely that the VC is focused on Bitcoin but detailing their identity or history would require relying on secondary sources.

Key Statements from the Cryptocurrency Community

Back’s comments aim to address quantum-risk alarmism in the cryptocurrency community. He argues that while the industry should be “quantum-ready,” panic about near-term threats is unwarranted. Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, also chimed into the broader quantum debate, suggesting a 20% chance of relevant quantum computers appearing before 2030.

Back has consistently stated that Bitcoin’s security does not rely solely on classical encryption and that even if some cryptography were weakened, Bitcoin would not be “automatically emptied.” These statements attempt to correct misconceptions about Bitcoin’s vulnerability to quantum computing and reassure the community about current security measures.

Quantum Risk: Broader Industry Context

Currently, there is no evidence that Back’s comments or the venture capitalist’s focus on quantum computing risks have influenced new funding rounds, grants, or institutional allocations within the cryptocurrency industry. Blockstream remains a well-funded company with no new raise or quantum-specific funding tied to this exchange at this time.

While many projects are exploring quantum-resistant R&D, these efforts are not directly linked to this recent dispute. The broader debate touches upon assets like Ethereum, where Vitalik Buterin’s comments are also shaping the narrative.

Historical Context and Community Sentiment

Debates surrounding quantum risk are not new to the cryptocurrency communities of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Historically, these discussions arise with announcements of quantum computer milestones and when prominent community figures speculate on timelines. However, these debates have not triggered major structural changes in protocols such as emergency hard forks.

The present argument remains a narrative-driven event, focusing on long-term planning for Bitcoin’s security against potential quantum threats. Back’s assessment frames quantum advancements as a decades-long consideration, contrasting with others who foresee a sooner probability. Nevertheless, there is no immediate pressure for structural changes to address quantum risk.