Nic Carter, a general partner at Castle Island Ventures, has issued a stern caution regarding Bitcoin’s vulnerability to quantum computing threats.
Carter emphasizes that the Bitcoin community and its developers are largely dismissing the escalating risks posed by quantum technology instead of addressing them seriously. He criticizes recent superficial debates on social media platforms like X for oversimplifying the issue and failing to grasp the true extent of potential dangers.
He explains that Bitcoin’s security framework is built upon elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), which could theoretically be compromised by a sufficiently advanced quantum computer using Shor’s Algorithm—a concept developed in the 1990s. Carter notes that Satoshi Nakamoto anticipated this risk and designed Bitcoin with adaptability in mind, allowing for protocol upgrades if necessary. Although current quantum machines are far from capable of such feats, Carter stresses that breaking ECC is not impossible but rather an immensely challenging engineering task. He compares advancements in quantum computing to the transformative impact nuclear fission had back in 1939—implying sudden breakthroughs could occur unexpectedly.
Looking ahead, Carter identifies 2025 as a pivotal year for progress in quantum computing, particularly due to improvements in error correction techniques. He highlights promising developments from companies like Google and Quantinuum while noting that startups have attracted nearly $6 billion this year alone; PsiQuantum notably secured $1 billion aiming to build a million-qubit device. According to Metaculus forecasts, experts generally predict functional cryptographically relevant quantum computers might emerge around 2033.
Carter also draws attention to recommendations from NIST—the U.S.’s official standards body—which advises phasing out cryptographic systems vulnerable to quantum attacks by 2030 and fully disabling them by 2035. Similar timelines are being pursued within both the European Union and United Kingdom frameworks. These deadlines serve as urgent calls for proactive measures within the Bitcoin ecosystem today.
The expert warns about serious consequences if so-called “crypto-related quantum computers” (CRQCs) become operational: roughly 6.7 million BTC currently reside at addresses susceptible to such attacks. Moreover, private keys might be intercepted even during brief windows before transactions get confirmed on-chain.
While acknowledging it is theoretically possible for Bitcoin to migrate toward post-quantum (PQ) signature schemes, Carter underscores how practically daunting this transition would be—due mainly to increased data sizes required by PQ algorithms, disputes over selecting appropriate schemes, and complexities involved with migrating millions of existing addresses over potentially many years. Reflecting on how challenging previous upgrades like SegWit or Taproot were despite their relative simplicity compared with PQ solutions illustrates just how difficult such an overhaul would prove.
A particularly contentious issue involves lost or dormant Bitcoins: approximately 1.7 million BTC remain locked inside old “pay-to-public-key” addresses tied back either directly or indirectly to Satoshi Nakamoto himself along with early miners’ wallets. If these coins cannot be moved safely before CRQC capabilities arise they may become targets for seizure through future attacks—forcing either unprecedented coin freezes amounting effectively mass confiscation or reluctantly accepting hostile entities controlling vast amounts of bitcoin holdings worldwide.
Carter concludes that preparing adequately against these looming threats will likely require at least ten years; thus delaying action isn’t advisable given potential consequences later down the line—including panic-driven market reactions triggered not necessarily by successful attacks but rather unpreparedness itself causing turmoil among investors especially institutional ones who currently provide significant capital support toward bitcoin’s ecosystem stability.
This article does not constitute investment advice.