The issue of Bitcoin (BTC) and other digital assets being vulnerable to quantum computing threats has once again sparked discussion within the cryptocurrency community. Prominent figures and cryptography experts have been actively debating this topic. The dialogue was initially sparked by a developer known as Hunter Beast, which subsequently drew responses from Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream.
Adam Back Claims Taproot Provides Adequate Protection for Bitcoin
Adam Back expressed skepticism about the necessity to overhaul Bitcoin due to hypothetical future quantum risks. He questioned the rationale behind such drastic measures.
The Blockstream leader argued against implementing BIP 360’s proposed P2TSH output format, emphasizing that Taproot was specifically engineered with quantum resilience in mind. He highlighted recent confirmations proving its security against post-quantum attacks.
Back further explained that if a genuine threat emerged from Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computers (CRQC), Bitcoin could simply deactivate key-path spending mechanisms. He also pointed out that relying on “hashed public keys” as a defense strategy is more theoretical than practical in real-world scenarios.
“But why? Taproot was designed with quantum readiness; the tweak has recently been proven post-quantum secure, and key spends can be deprecated if CRQC becomes an issue. The supposed security benefits of ‘hashed’ key formats were always more theoretical than actual,”
— Adam Back (@adam3us) December 25, 2025
Back noted widespread reuse of keys across wallets using addresses, index servers, and unhardened HD derivation paths. Therefore, even transitioning Bitcoin entirely to hash-based schemes wouldn’t eliminate vulnerabilities since many exposed keys would remain accessible targets for quantum attackers.
He firmly believes Taproot already offers sufficient protection against potential quantum threats as it was designed with this purpose in mind. According to him, BIP 360 is premature and unnecessarily disruptive; adoption should only increase when tangible quantum dangers become apparent.
On the other hand, Hunter Beast along with other proponents of BIP 360 advocate for stronger post-quantum safeguards now—even at the cost of losing some Taproot functionalities immediately.
This raises concerns about losing critical features like public key tweaking and Point Time-Locked Contracts essential for advanced Lightning Network operations and smart contract capabilities.
While Hunter Beast acknowledged these losses might occur temporarily, he suggested future solutions could involve leveraging isogeny-based cryptographic methods as workarounds down the line.
Diverse Opinions Among Industry Leaders on Quantum Risks
The debate continues but Adam Back consistently downplays fears related to quantum computers threatening Bitcoin’s security model. He emphasizes that Bitcoin relies primarily on signature schemes rather than encryption systems vulnerable to such attacks.
Back also stresses there are currently No immediate dangers posed by existing or near-future quantum computers, contrary to popular speculation among some enthusiasts.
This unwarranted anxiety often stems from misunderstandings about how Bitcoin’s protocol functions internally according to him.
An estimate shared by Back suggests serious risks from powerful enough quantum machines are unlikely within at least two decades or possibly up to forty years ahead.
A similar stance comes from Samson Mow—the CEO of JAN3—who previously predicted bitcoin reaching $1 million per coin value; he too dismisses concerns over imminent destruction caused by emerging quantum technologies affecting cryptocurrencies negatively.