'Nonsense': Satoshi Associate Shuts Down Quantum Threat Claims Around Bitcoin
Te latest quantum scare around Bitcoin fell apart almost as fast as it appeared. Adam Back, one of the first people associated with Bitcoin’s beginnings, openly ended claims that the price of the cryptocurrency should already be 30% lower because of an upcoming quantum break made by another prominent Bitcoin opinion maker, Charles Edwards. For Back, though, it is nothing more than “nonsense.”
The thesis of Edwards is simple as it this — Bitcoin might be broken by quantum computers in three years, and the market should probably give it a 34% discount right away. His case is based on expert surveys, projected timelines and the idea that elliptic curve cryptography would suddenly fail by 2028 with no time to react.
Back disagrees, and his counterarguments are well known too. First of all, Bitcoin is not protected the same way banks protect data. It uses digital signatures instead of traditional encryption, and post-quantum signature systems are already out there. NIST wrapped up SLH-DSA in 2024, and Bitcoin can switch to quantum-secure signatures without locking funds or rebuilding the whole protocol.
Nonsense.
— Adam Back (@adam3us) December 17, 2025
Back has said a bunch of times that quantum readiness is a software upgrade path, not a sudden do-or-die event. Taproot, scripting upgrades and flexible signature rules already support a phased transition well before any real threat appears.
Bitcoin vs. time
What Back basically says is that even if we are super optimistic, it will be years before we have large-scale quantum machines that can withstand failures. If these systems are implemented, banks, governments and global internet security would face pressure first — not Bitcoin holders alone.
The real issue is not ignoring quantum research, as Back says, but pushing artificial urgency. Bitcoin has time, tools and a history of cryptographic upgrades. If you treat distant hardware theory like a quick price cut, it just shows that you are focused on short-term trading instead of the actual risks involved in the protocol.