Adam Back shuts down Quantum FUD that could ‘likely crash Bitcoin’s market’

ambcryptoPublished on 2025-12-16Last updated on 2025-12-16

Abstract

Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, dismisses claims that quantum computing poses an immediate threat to Bitcoin, stating current technology is incapable of cracking the network. He estimates it could take 20-40 years for quantum computers to become stable and powerful enough to threaten BTC, and by then, the network could be upgraded for quantum security. While some investors, like Charles Edwards, urge faster action, experts note that existing quantum prototypes have high error rates and far fewer than the 2,500+ stable qubits required to break Bitcoin's encryption. In the meantime, holders are migrating to more secure Segwit addresses to reduce vulnerability.

Quantum computing has made some progress, but not to the extent that it could pose a threat to the Bitcoin network and related wallets.

According to Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream and a cypherpunk who was once mistaken for Satoshi, quantum computers right now can’t crash BTC.

He discredited a post that claimed that the only thing that could crash BTC by 99% from $87k to $3 is a quantum computer capable of cracking wallets and the entire network.

Last month, Back said that quantum computers could only become stable and pose a threat to BTC in the next 20-40 years.

Still, the network could be secure by the time the risk becomes real. In fact, Blockstream researchers are already developing proposals for upgrading the Bitcoin network to a quantum-secure one.

However, not everyone believes the threat is two decades away.

Why quantum-secure BTC is urgent

Perhaps one of the most vocal investors about the risks of quantum computing is Charles Edwards, CEO of Capriole Investments. According to him, BTC has lagged behind gold in terms of price performance this year because of the risk.

The best solution, he added, is to reach a consensus in 2026 and make the Bitcoin network quantum-resistant.

For perspective, quantum computers differ from current classical computers because they utilize the so-called qubits instead of typical solid-state chips that operate on 0 and 1. However, they are currently difficult to create, scale, and shield from errors (such as overheating).

So far, IBM has a working prototype with about 1000 qubits, while Google and Microsoft have managed 50 and 8 qubits, respectively. Alas, the error rates have been extremely high.

To crack the current Bitcoin cryptography, a quantum computer must have at least 2,500 logical and stable qubits that can operate for days without errors. That’s why experts like Adam Back view the threat as a long-term issue, rather than an immediate or mid-term risk.

Bitcoin holders seek relative security

In fact, most of the top firms that are pushing for quantum computers will be at risk if they develop one without proper safeguards. Based on this premise, even Strategy founder Michael Saylor has downplayed the mid-term threats posed by quantum computers to Bitcoin.

“Google and Microsoft won’t sell you a quantum computer that cracks modern cryptography because it’ll destroy them, the US government, and the banking system.”

In the meantime, some top holders are already migrating to more resistant Bitcoin addresses (Segwit, blue) from the latest format (taproot, purple).

According to BTC analyst Willy Woo, Segwit reduces “quantum long range attacks” if the address is not reused.

The number of Segwit addresses has been increasing since 2024.


Final Thoughts

  • Cryptography experts believe that it could take decades for quantum computers to crack the Bitcoin network.
  • Some investors have already migrated to relatively secure Segwit addresses.

Related Reads

From Doubao Dispute to Big Tech Game: Decoding the Legal Compliance Dilemma of AI Phones

"From Doubao Controversy to Tech Giant Standoff: Decoding the Legal Compliance Dilemma of AI Phones" A recent user experience with AI-powered smartphones has triggered significant tension between AI developers and major internet platforms. Certain phones equipped with AI assistants, when attempting to perform automated actions like sending WeChat red packets or placing e-commerce orders via voice commands, were flagged by platforms for "suspected use of third-party plugins," leading to risk warnings and even account restrictions. This incident, while appearing to be a technical compatibility issue, reveals a deeper structural conflict over "who has the right to operate the phone and control user access." On one side are smartphone manufacturers and AI teams aiming to deeply integrate AI into operating systems for "seamless interaction." On the other are internet platforms whose business models rely on controlling app entry points, user pathways, and data ecosystems. This clash represents a fundamental challenge to the "walled garden" business model central to platforms like Tencent and Alibaba. The system-level AI assistant threatens this model in three key ways: it bypasses the need to click app icons (undermining ad revenue and user attention economies), potentially accesses platform data and content without formal interfaces (a "free-riding" concern), and shifts the role of "gatekeeper" for traffic distribution away from the super apps themselves. From a legal perspective, this conflict highlights four major risk areas: 1. **Competition Law:** AI's "simulated clicks" could be deemed unauthorized interference with software operation, potentially constituting unfair competition if they skip ads or bypass verification steps. 2. **Data Security:** For the AI to "see" screen content and execute commands, it processes sensitive personal data (chats, account info), raising significant questions under China's Personal Information Protection Law regarding valid user consent and the "minimum necessity" principle. 3. **Antitrust Issues:** Future disputes may center on whether dominant platforms, arguably essential facilities, can justifiably refuse AI access, or if such refusal constitutes an abuse of market power that stifles innovation. 4. **User Liability:** Questions arise regarding who is responsible if the AI makes an error (e.g., buys the wrong product) or if a user's account is suspended due to AI activity, potentially leading to consumer claims against phone manufacturers. This friction underscores a transition from an app-centric internet to an AI-agent-driven experience. The current legal framework struggles to address the integration of general AI. The sustainable solution likely lies not in technical workarounds like "simulated clicks," but in developing standardized protocols for AI interaction, balancing innovation with clear legal and compliance boundaries.

深潮1m ago

From Doubao Dispute to Big Tech Game: Decoding the Legal Compliance Dilemma of AI Phones

深潮1m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of S (S) are presented below.

活动图片