Adam Back Conquers Quantum Threats with Taproot!

by

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a cryptocurrency in possession of a good network, must be in want of protection from quantum threats. Thus, the recent discourse on the safety of Bitcoin (BTC) and other assets has stirred the hearts of many, particularly those who fancy themselves as cryptographers and philosophers. A most curious conversation, initiated by a certain Hunter Beast, has drawn the attention of none other than Adam Back, the esteemed CEO of Blockstream, whose opinions are as sharp as a well-timed quip.

Adam Back argues “Taproot feature” enough for Bitcoin

Mr. Back, with his usual air of confidence, contends that there is no need to redesign Bitcoin over such hypothetical concerns. “But why?” he might ask, with a raised eyebrow and a quill poised to strike. He argues that the Taproot feature, a marvel of cryptographic ingenuity, was designed with quantum readiness in mind, and its recent key tweak has proven it secure against post-quantum attacks. 🧙‍♂️

He insists that should a Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computer (CRQC) ever emerge, Bitcoin could simply disable key-path spends, a move as simple as removing a hat in the presence of a gentleman. He dismisses the notion of relying on “hashed public keys” as a mere talking point, not a practical solution. 🌟

But why? Taproot was designed with quantum readiness, the tweak was recently proven to be PQ secure, and the key spend can be the thing that is deprecated in the event of CRQC. The security value of “hashed” key formats was always more of a talking point than reality,

– Adam Back (@adam3us) December 25, 2025

Mr. Back further posits that key reuse is a common occurrence, as many wallets utilize addresses, index servers, and unhardened HD derivation. Thus, even if Bitcoin were to switch to hash-only schemes, quantum attackers would still have plenty of exposed keys to target. A most vexing dilemma, indeed. 🧠

He believes that Taproot is already sufficient to safeguard Bitcoin from quantum threats, as that was the intent of its design. He deems BIP 360 premature and overly disruptive, preferring increased adaptation only when the threat is real. A man of reason, to be sure. 🧑‍⚖️

Interestingly, Hunter Beast and his ilk advocate for stronger post-quantum guarantees, willing to sacrifice Taproot features now. A bold move, though one might question whether such haste is prudent. 🚀

However, there are concerns that Bitcoin could lose public key tweaking and Point Time-Locked Contracts, essential for advanced Lightning and Smart contract constructions. A most lamentable prospect, should it come to pass. 🤔

Though Mr. Beast acknowledges it could be lost, he suggests it might be possible to work around it by using isogeny-based cryptography in the future. A hopeful note, though one wonders if such a solution will be as elegant as the original. 🌈

Other stakeholders dismiss quantum threats

Despite the ongoing debate, Mr. Back has always dismissed quantum threat fears with a wave of his hand. He opines that Bitcoin’s security is about signatures, not encryption. He insists there are no immediate threats from quantum computers, as many suggest. A most reassuring sentiment, though one might question the wisdom of relying on such assurances. 🤯

He claims the unnecessary fears surrounding the topic are from those who do not fully appreciate how Bitcoin’s network operates. Mr. Back estimates that Bitcoin is unlikely to face any serious quantum computing threat in the next 20 to 40 years. A comforting thought, though one cannot help but wonder if the future is as predictable as he believes. 🕰️

Similarly, Samson Mow, the esteemed CEO of JAN3, known for his bold predictions, says there is no need to worry about quantum computers killing the asset. A man of confidence, to be sure, though one might question whether his optimism is as well-founded as he believes. 🎩

Read More

2025-12-25 18:08