JAN3 CEO and Bitcoin educator Samson Mo said the threat of quantum computing on networks is not imminent and could take “10 to 20 years” to materialize. Acting too quickly could cause more problems than solutions, the executive said in an April 5 publication in X magazine.
Quantum computers don’t exist yet, and likely won’t for another 10-20 years, so rushing to implement a solution would be the worst decision.
Samson Mo, JAN3 CEO.
Regarding the alleged quantum threat to Bitcoin, Mow argued that moving quickly to post-quantum transaction signatures, a scheme designed to counter such attacks, would incur significant technical costs. According to his analysis, These companies could be 10 to 125 times the size of today’s companies This increases the weight of transactions and reduces the processing power of the network.
The Bitcoin network has an effective size limit of up to 4 megabytes (MB) for each block, so larger transactions mean fewer operations per block, more competition for that space, and ultimately higher fees.
In that sense, CriptoNoticias reports that recent tests using post-quantum signatures have seen up to a 90% decrease in the scalability of the Solana testnet.
According to Mow, this scenario could reignite tensions similar to those experienced during the so-called “block wars,” historical debates over the network’s block size and scalability that surfaced in 2017, as reported by CriptoNoticias.
However, he also pointed out that his position does not mean that “no preparatory work should be done, and indeed a lot of work is already being done in that direction.”
An example of this is the BIP-360 proposal. A new type of transaction signature for Bitcoin. Quantum hardware resistant. At the same time, Adam Back and his company Blockstream proposed a signature model based on hash functions to secure networks.
Change now or change later: The crux of the Mow debate
Mow introduced another argument beyond performance. That’s the possibility of rushing the transition. Generate a new attack surface.
In that sense, the executive suggested that some post-quantum proposals could incorporate weaknesses in key components of Bitcoin. like a random number generator. These systems create private keys and must generate values that are completely unpredictable. If this process fails or is tampered with, an attacker may be able to reconstruct the keys and access your funds.
“Proposed post-quantum solutions could become Trojan horses for implementing backdoors in random number generators and post-quantum encryption schemes,” Mow said, noting that certain implementations may contain vulnerabilities that are difficult to detect.
Part of the resistance to the adoption of post-quantum cryptography lies in the fact that many of these schemes are: Not tested in open environments for decadessimilar to what happened with the current system used by Bitcoin.
Diverse opinions within the community
A recent report produced by ARK Invest in collaboration with Unchained Setting the critical point in the same 10-20 year range Until the moment quantum computers begin to break the elliptic curve encryption that protects Bitcoin, albeit slowly at first.
The study also introduces relevant nuances for measuring risk. Currently, 65% of the BTC supply is found in addresses whose public keys are not exposed, and while the rest are potentially vulnerable, the majority can be migrated to more secure schemes.
Like Mow and the ARK Invest team, Adam Back, one of the most relevant developers in the Bitcoin ecosystem, agrees that we are 10 to 20 years away from Bitcoin’s so-called “Q-day.”
However, there is also the opposite position. Charles Edwards, CEO of asset management firm Capriol, believes Bitcoin should be protected. Countering quantum threats by 2028the period is significantly shorter.
Along the same lines, as reported by CriptoNoticias, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin estimates that the threats to ECDSA encryption (the digital signature system that secures both Bitcoin and Ethereum, as well as other networks) are: It could arrive in 2028.
In that context, Mo’s position introduces a clear axis into the debate. It is not just a question of whether Bitcoin should be adapted to quantum computing, but also when and under what technical conditions. For now, the answer is still unclear.
