Chainfeeds Summary:
Arguing about upgrades is a regular occurrence in the Bitcoin community, and this time the topic was "Should we worry about quantum computing?"
Article source:
https://foresightnews.pro/article/detail/93469
Article Author:
Foresight News
Opinion:
Foresight News: A representative of the radical camp is Nic Carter, founding partner of Castle Island Ventures. As Fidelity's first crypto asset analyst and the founder of a VC firm heavily invested in Bitcoin ecosystem projects, Nic's words carry weight within the Bitcoin community. Nic's concern isn't that Bitcoin developers can't provide a solution, but rather, based on past experience, he believes that if action isn't taken soon, Bitcoin may not be able to achieve quantum resistance before quantum computing matures. Nic stated that many quantum computing companies predict that fully functional, scalable quantum computers could be built by the mid-2030s. NIST, the official standards-setting agency of the US government, has recommended to governments worldwide that they phase out quantum-vulnerable encryption schemes, such as ECC256, by 2030 and completely cease reliance on them by 2035. It's important to note that these are just predictions; private companies may not fully disclose their progress and then suddenly announce a major breakthrough, much like with AI. Nic believes that faced with this unpredictable threat, Bitcoin developers should act immediately. In response to Nic's criticism, Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream and inventor of the Proof-of-Work (PoW) mechanism, seemed unfazed. He bluntly stated in the comments section of Nic's article on X that Nic was either stupid or malicious: "Either you don't understand the work we're doing, or you're deliberately spreading panic." Adam stated that Blockstream has been actively involved in PQ (post-quantum) application research, but it's not as simple as writing a BIP and releasing a "PQ signature scheme." Blockstream focuses on analyzing its applicability and first optimizing hash-based schemes for specific domains. Furthermore, some members of the Blockstream team have contributed to the security proofs of SLH-DSA (Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Algorithm, one of the post-quantum cryptography standards released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in August 2024), so they are fully capable of solving this problem. Adam stated that what they need to do now is to determine a secure and conservative solution resistant to quantum attacks; hastily choosing a solution that ultimately proves insecure would cause even greater damage. Adam believes that Nic's actions are partly due to the low profile of Bitcoin developers, who don't share their research on social media, leaving Nic unaware of the latest developments. Adam also implied that Nic wanted to spread panic. Hasu, an advisor to Flashbots, Lido, and Stakehouse, and a cryptocurrency OG researcher, used the debate between the two sides to pinpoint the root cause of the current problems in the Bitcoin community. In an article published on X, Hasu described this problem as follows: Bitcoin's culture has long guaranteed that its core rules will not be easily changed, but this culture has evolved over time into "resistance to change." Bitcoin faces two long-term risks: one is the "quantum crisis," and the other is the problem of the economic model shifting to a fee-driven model after the continuous reduction of block rewards. Hasu admitted that he is currently uncertain whether these two risks can be properly resolved. The reason, according to Hasu, is that the culture that Bitcoin has cultivated over time has made it politically incorrect to say that "Bitcoin has problems" or even just that "Bitcoin can be improved in some ways." While not explicitly stated, the author speculates that this culture stems from Bitcoin's early, long-standing exclusion by the mainstream. Once accepted, many long-time Bitcoin supporters, often referred to as "believers," fostered a culture within the community akin to a religious faith. This culture has led to the mythologizing of Bitcoin to an extreme degree, to the point of being intolerant of even a grain of sand—a kind of pathological release after years of suppression.
Content source 
