What to know : Bitcoin developer Adam Back argues that the network should begin adding optional quantum-resistant features now, even though practical quantum computers remain years away. A new proposal known as BIP-361 would phase out quantum-vulnerable addresses over five years and freeze coins that do not migrate, including Satoshi Nakamoto’s and millions of long-dormant bitcoins. The debate centers on whether Bitcoin should rely on rapid, emergency coordination if quantum threats materialize or pre-schedule strict measures like address freezes to force an orderly migration.
The quantum computing threat has some of Bitcoin's most vocal developers landing in wildly different places.
Blockstream's CEO, Adam Back, told Paris Blockchain Week attendees on Wednesday that Bitcoin developers should start building optional quantum-resistant upgrades now, even though current quantum computers remain "essentially lab experiments" with progress that has been "incremental" over the 25 years he has tracked the field.
"Preparation is key. Making changes in a controlled way is far safer than reacting in a crisis," the Blockstream CEO said.
He pointed to his company's work testing quantum-resistant transaction signatures on Liquid, a sister network to Bitcoin. He argued that a 2021 Bitcoin upgrade called Taproot was designed flexibly enough to accept new signature methods without disrupting anyone currently using the network.
The comments echo Back's position from last week, when he told CoinDesk that users should have roughly a decade to migrate their keys to quantum-resistant formats.
What is different now is the context around them. BIP-361, the proposal from Jameson Lopp and five other developers published Tuesday, would phase out quantum-vulnerable addresses on a fixed five-year timeline and freeze any coins that fail to migrate.
That includes roughly 1 million bitcoin attributed to Bitcoin's pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, and an estimated 5.6 million coins, Loppsays, have not moved in over a decade.
Back's framing reads as the implicit alternative to BIP-361's forced migration. He did not mention the Lopp proposal directly, but addressed the underlying question of whether Bitcoin's developer community can respond quickly to a sudden quantum breakthrough.
"Bugs have been identified and fixed within hours. When something becomes urgent, it focuses attention and drives consensus," he said, suggesting Bitcoin's rough-consensus governance could handle an emergency without pre-scheduled freezes years in advance.
The two positions represent the core disagreement shaping Bitcoin's quantum debate.
Back is betting that developers can coordinate quickly if the threat accelerates. Lopp is betting they cannot, and that a scheduled freeze is the only way to avoid a disorderly migration under pressure.
Google and Caltech researchers said last month that functional quantum computers capable of breaking Bitcoin's cryptography could arrive sooner than previously estimated, which is what moved the debate from theoretical to active.
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。
