Bitcoin & Quantum Panic: A Developer’s Dance of Wits 🎩

by

Quantum peril, that most fashionable of concerns, hath become a recurring source of consternation within the Bitcoin realm, oft depicted as an existential calamity. The narrative, as predictable as a heroine’s suitor, unfolds thus: quantum computing progresses apace, cryptography trembles, and Bitcoin, poor soul, lags behind in its preparations. How dreadfully dramatic! 🤯

Marty Bent, a gentleman of discerning mind, doth not subscribe to this tale of woe. In his Dec. 14 discourse, he acknowledged quantum computing’s menace-nay, a threat not solely to Bitcoin, but to all systems reliant upon modern cryptography-yet he refuted the notion that Bitcoin’s stewards ignore the matter. “Short answer is yes, it is a risk,” he declared, “But it’s not only a risk for Bitcoin. It’s a risk for any system that depends on cryptography for security.” A most reasonable sentiment, if we may say so. 😊

What Developers Are Doing To Make Bitcoin Quantum-Safe

What is often overlooked, he opined, is the industrious toil already underway. Bent pointed to developer deliberations and a recent research paper by Blockstream’s Jonas Nick and Mikhail Kutunov, exploring hash-based, post-quantum signature schemes tailored for Bitcoin’s peculiar needs. “I just wanted to make this video to push back on that notion,” Bent quipped, “Because I think it’s pretty clear if you’ve been following Bitcoin development discussions over the last year, the quantum risk is certainly being taken seriously and the conversations have started.” A most scholarly rebuttal! 📚

Hash-based signatures are conceptually simple and rely solely on hash functions, which is a primitive Bitcoin already trusts.

While NIST has standardized SLH-DSA (SPHINCS+), we investigate alternatives that are better suited to Bitcoin’s specific needs.

– ncklr (@n1ckler) December 9, 2025

Nick, in a Dec. 9 missive on X, described the paper as an analysis of post-quantum schemes optimized for Bitcoin’s constraints. Bent lauded the work as a signal that research is shifting from abstract musings to concrete designs. “Hash-based signatures are conceptually simple,” Nick wrote, “and rely solely on hash functions, which is a primitive Bitcoin already trusts. While NIST has standardized SLH-DSA (SPHINCS+), we investigate alternatives that are better suited to Bitcoin’s specific needs.” A most pragmatic approach! 🧠

The challenge, Bent emphasized, is not a dearth of solutions, but Bitcoin’s own obstinate nature. A globally distributed system with 17 years of history, altering its protocol is akin to convincing a stubborn baron to change his estate’s architecture. “Bitcoin is a globally distributed peer-to-peer system that depends on consensus protocol rules that are very hard to change,” Bent declared. “And you really don’t want to change them too often.” A truth as immutable as the laws of etiquette. 🏰

This reality complicates the transition to quantum-resistant signatures. Existing address types, HD wallets, and multisig setups all require tender care. And beyond compatibility, there’s the vexing question of performance. “One of the biggest hurdles,” Bent lamented, “is that many quantum-resistant schemes are very data intensive.” A most unwelcome trait for a system that values efficiency as much as a lady her bonnet. 🎩

Larger signatures may slow block propagation and make running a full node more costly, directly impacting decentralization. The Blockstream paper, however, explores optimizations to reduce signature sizes to a few kilobytes while keeping verification costs manageable. “They feel pretty confident,” Bent noted, “that they’ve done the research to find signature schemes that would have a nice trade-off balance.” A most promising endeavor! 🌟

Bent, ever the cautious scholar, refrained from declaring victory. Instead, he described the research as groundwork-mapping the problem space before quantum capabilities advance like a rival at a ball. “This is by no means like, ‘hey, we solved the problem,’” he said. “But we are taking this problem seriously, doing research and beginning to figure out ways in which we could solve the quantum risk that may or may not manifest in the medium to long term.” A most prudent approach! 🕒

He also noted that BTC is often singled out in quantum discussions, despite the internet’s broader reliance on cryptography. “If quantum computers do come,” Bent mused, “Bitcoin is not the only thing. Almost everything you touch on the internet is depending on some cryptographic security at some point.” A truth as universal as the tea served at Lady Catherine’s. ☕

Everyone’s panicking about quantum computing killing bitcoin.

But they’re ignoring what just got released.@martybent explains.

– TFTC (@TFTC21) December 14, 2025

For now, Bent’s takeaway was measured. Quantum risk exists. Progress is real. But the narrative that developers are ignoring it is as fanciful as a ghost story at a summer ball. “Very smart developers, cryptographers more importantly, are researching the problem,” he said. “If you know where to look, it’s pretty clear that people are preparing for this.” Not solved. Not ignored. Just quietly being worked on. A most admirable resolve! 💪

At press time, BTC traded at $89,854.

Read More

2025-12-15 17:28