Safety of Bitcoin (BTC) and other assets quantum threat has resurfaced in the cryptocurrency space, with prominent players and cryptographers brainstorming. a conversation The project, started by the author and developer with the username Hunter Beast, drew comments from Blockstream CEO Adam Back.
Adam Back argues that “Taproot feature” is sufficient for Bitcoin
According to Buck, there is no need to redesign Bitcoin over concerns about hypothetical future threats. “But why?” he asked.
Blockstream CEO claimed that Taproot is designed for quantum readiness, and that the P2TSH output type proposed by BIP 360 is not necessary. He explained that its key adjustments were recently confirmed to be secure against post-quantum attacks.
Buck argued that even if a serious threat were to emerge in the form of cryptographic related quantum computing (CRQC), Bitcoin could simply disable keypass spending. He argued that relying on “hashed public keys” for quantum security is theoretical and not practical.
but why. Taproot is designed to be quantum-ready, and this adjustment was recently proven to be PQ-secure and could result in key usage being deprecated in the event of a CRQC. The security value of “hashed” key formats has always been more talk than reality.
— Adam Back (@adam3us) December 25, 2025
He argues that key reuse is ubiquitous, as many wallets utilize addresses, index servers, and unhardened HD derivatives. So even if Bitcoin were to switch to a hash-only scheme, quantum attackers would still have a large number of public keys to target.
Buck believes Taproot is already sufficient to protect Bitcoin from quantum threats, as that was the design intent. He believes BIP 360 is premature and overly destructive, and wants to ramp up adaptation only if quantum threats become a reality.
Interestingly, Hunter Beast and other BIP 360 proponents want stronger post-quantum guarantees and currently seem willing to sacrifice Taproot functionality.
However, there are concerns that Bitcoin could lose the public key coordination and point-time lock contracts needed to build advanced lightning and smart contracts.
Hunter Beast acknowledged that there is a possibility of data loss, which could be avoided in the future by using isogeny-based encryption.
Other stakeholders ignore quantum threat
Despite the ongoing debate, Adam Back has always dismissed concerns about quantum threats. He argues that Bitcoin’s security is about signatures, not encryption. Buck also claims to exist There is no immediate threat from quantum computers., As many people have suggested.
He argued that unnecessary anxiety surrounding the topic comes from people who don’t fully understand how the Bitcoin network works. Buck estimates that Bitcoin is unlikely to face a serious threat from quantum computing within the next 20 to 40 years.
Similarly, JAN3 CEO Samson MoThe author, who famously predicted that Bitcoin could reach $1 million, says there is no need to worry about quantum computers destroying assets.
