Written by: Eric, Foresight News

Readers who follow cutting-edge technology are likely aware of the advancements in quantum computing this year. This "technological revolution," which has been touted alongside AI for many years, has finally made breakthrough progress this year. In simple terms, quantum computing has transitioned from a physical problem to an engineering problem, marking a turning point from the laboratory to commercialization. This year has also been designated by the United Nations as the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology.

The technological breakthrough is good news, but the bad news is that quantum computing relates to the survival of Bitcoin. When computational power reaches a certain threshold, public keys exposed on the network could potentially have their private keys calculated by quantum computing, which could deal a devastating blow to Bitcoin.

If previous discussions about quantum computing were still at the level of "Will it affect Bitcoin?", this year's discussions have evolved to the question of "What should we do?" The Bitcoin community's debates on significant issues have always been intense, from block size expansion to the Lightning Network, and then to the Taproot upgrade; each time, the discussions have been heated, and this time is no exception.

Interestingly, the core of this debate is not about which solution is better, but rather a conflict over the level of concern. Given that past debates were aimed at improving Bitcoin, this time it is about survival. The radicals believe that Bitcoin's leaders are too optimistic, and if they do not prioritize this issue and come up with a solution quickly, it could lead to irreparable losses; the conservatives feel that the radicals are overreacting, believing that Bitcoin has always found a way when faced with challenges, and this time will be no different.

Unlike previous discussions, this time some prominent figures have elevated the debate from the conflict itself to the level of community culture, sharply pointing out that the Bitcoin community has become increasingly intolerant of criticism.

Radicals: "The Emperor is not in a hurry, but the eunuchs are anxious"

The representative of the radicals is Nic Carter, founding partner of Castle Island Ventures, who was the first crypto asset analyst at Fidelity and a VC founder who has invested heavily in Bitcoin ecosystem projects. Nic's statements carry weight in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Nic's concern is not that Bitcoin developers cannot provide solutions, but rather based on past experiences, he judges that if action is not taken soon, Bitcoin may not complete its quantum-resistant upgrade before quantum computing matures.

Nic stated that many quantum computing companies predict that fully functional and scalable quantum computers could be built by the mid-2030s. The U.S. government's official standards-setting body, NIST, has already advised government agencies worldwide to phase out cryptographic schemes vulnerable to quantum attacks, such as ECC256, before 2030 and to completely stop relying on them by 2035.

It is worth noting that these are just predictions; private companies may not fully disclose their progress and could suddenly announce significant breakthroughs one day, just like with AI. Nic believes that in the face of this unpredictable threat, Bitcoin developers should take immediate action.

The uncertainty of the timing of technological breakthroughs is just one reason for Nic's sense of urgency. The second reason is that reaching a consensus within the Bitcoin community on quantum-resistant solutions and how to migrate Bitcoin at risk will be a visible challenge that requires years of discussion.

Nic pointed out that the SegWit and Taproot upgrades took two and three years, respectively, from proposal to activation, and the complexity of a "post-quantum" upgrade is clearly higher. Changing the cryptographic technology at the core of the protocol will alter nearly every aspect of the system, including how users interact with it. Furthermore, if an upgrade is indeed carried out, how should those dormant addresses be handled? Should the Bitcoin in them be frozen, or should the more than 1.7 million Bitcoins that have been "lost" be left to be claimed by others?

These are issues that can be anticipated to take a significant amount of time, not to mention the need to allow enough time for as many people as possible to be informed about transferring Bitcoin to new addresses. Nic calculated that completing all these tasks would take about 10 years, and if quantum computing is indeed going to make breakthroughs within 10 years, then Bitcoin's quantum-resistant upgrade needs to start being pushed forward now.

What truly worries Nic is not the inaction of Bitcoin developers, but rather this indifference stemming from a pathologically cautious development culture. Nic believes that to avoid bringing unpredictable risks to Bitcoin, the choices regarding upgrades are heavily ideologically driven, aiming to rely as little as possible on any third-party libraries and to limit functionalities, including scripting languages. Since 2017, Bitcoin has only undergone two major upgrades, both accompanied by significant controversy and internal strife, which confirms this paranoid reluctance to change.

Conservatives: "I know you're anxious, but don't rush"

In response to Nic's criticism, Adam Back, co-founder of Bitcoin development company Blockstream and the inventor of the PoW mechanism, seems unfazed. He bluntly stated under Nic's article on X that Nic is either foolish or malicious: either he does not understand the work they are doing, or he is deliberately spreading panic.

Adam stated that Blockstream has been actively involved in PQ (post-quantum) application research, but it is not as simple as writing a BIP and pushing a "PQ signature scheme" to solve everything. Blockstream focuses on analyzing its applicability and first optimizing specific areas for hash-based schemes. Additionally, some team members at Blockstream have contributed to the security proofs for SLH-DSA (Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Algorithm), one of the post-quantum cryptography standards to be released by NIST in August 2024, so they are fully capable of addressing this issue.

Adam indicated that what they need to do now is to determine a secure and conservative quantum-resistant scheme; if they hastily choose a scheme that ultimately proves to be insecure, the damage would be greater. Adam believes that Nic's actions stem partly from the fact that Bitcoin developers are very low-profile and do not share their research on social media, leading Nic to be unaware of the latest research progress. Adam also hinted that Nic might be trying to spread panic.

Nic's article on X is actually a summary of his over 20,000-word research report. Adam's response, seemingly without having read the report, directly angered Nic, who retorted in his reply against this elitist arrogance and clearly stated: "Read it and then come back to talk."

Objectively speaking, Adam's response seems to sidestep the main issue; he did not directly address whether Bitcoin would be able to solve the problem if quantum computing truly makes a qualitative breakthrough within 10 years, but instead emphasized that they have made progress and cannot act hastily. Some users in the comments expressed similar views, with a user named BagOfWords stating: "The problem is, if they are wrong, Bitcoin will gain quantum resistance faster; but if you are wrong, we will have to act hastily, and real panic will ensue, which is worse than panic itself. To be honest, the migration speed is indeed very slow."

Adam's response to this was that "short-term panic will bring more serious risks." It is unclear whether the so-called risks refer to price risks or concerns that short-term panic will lead developers to hastily choose a quantum-resistant scheme that may not have been sufficiently proven effective. However, this response does indeed convey the "arrogance" that Nic mentioned.

Nonetheless, Adam's concerns are not without merit. Although quantum computing has entered the engineering phase, there is still no clear picture of what it will ultimately develop into. If a quantum-resistant scheme is hastily updated now and later proves ineffective against quantum computing or is deemed "overkill," it could indeed create more problems. We cannot know whether the lack of urgency among Bitcoin developers stems from technical confidence or other reasons, but Nic's "better early than late" attitude clearly resonates with the public's simple emotions.

Industry OG: There are indeed problems with Bitcoin community culture

The two individuals mentioned above are just representatives of both sides, and this topic has seen both factions sparring on various platforms for nearly a year. Hasu, a consultant for Flashbots, Lido, and Stakehouse, as well as a cryptocurrency OG researcher, has articulated the root problem currently existing in the Bitcoin community through the debates between the two sides.

In an article posted on X, Hasu described this issue as follows: the Bitcoin culture has long ensured that its core rules are not easily changed, but this culture has evolved over time into a "refusal to change."

Bitcoin faces two long-term risks: one is the "quantum crisis," and the other is the issue of the economic model shifting to fee-driven after block rewards continue to diminish. Hasu candidly admitted that he is currently unsure whether these two risks can be properly addressed. The reason, according to Hasu, is that the culture formed around Bitcoin over the long term has begun to make it politically incorrect to say "there are problems with Bitcoin" or even to suggest "Bitcoin can be improved in certain aspects."

Although he did not explicitly state the reasons, it can be speculated that this culture stems from Bitcoin's early long-term exclusion by the mainstream. Once recognized, many long-time supporters of Bitcoin fostered a culture akin to religious faith within the community. This culture has mythologized Bitcoin to an extreme degree, to the point where it cannot tolerate even a grain of sand, and in some ways, it is a pathological release after years of repression.

Hasu continued to explain that this extreme culture makes it easier for gradualists to gain recognition and a voice within the community, while relatively radical and bold suggestions or proposals are becoming increasingly rare. Even in discussions about the quantum crisis, many relatively knowledgeable individuals describe it as "alarmist," while very few actually simulate possible consequences and explore solutions. This description aligns closely with the attitude exhibited by Adam.

In response to this issue, Hasu offered a very reasonable solution. He believes that the "rigidity" of Bitcoin culture should be a strategy rather than a belief. This strategy can maintain a high degree of neutrality but also needs to set up an "emergency plan," which allows for a certain degree of criticism and questioning when real threats arise, as well as mobilizing enough resources to initiate defensive work immediately.

Finally, Hasu stated that pretending that tail risks do not exist will not make Bitcoin stronger; it will only weaken the ability to respond to risks when tail risks are no longer just theoretical. The Bitcoin community should now focus on cultural adjustment: how to maintain caution while being able to respond to vulnerabilities at any time.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。