Adam Back suggested that the emergence of quantum computing could force Satoshi Nakamoto to move their Bitcoin to protect it, revealing whether they are alive. <\/p>\n
<\/span> 10234 <\/span> Total views <\/span><\/p>\n 8 <\/span> Total shares <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Early cypherpunk Adam Back, cited by Satoshi Nakamoto in the Bitcoin white paper, suggested that quantum computing pressure may reveal whether the blockchain\u2019s pseudonymous creator is alive.<\/p>\n During an interview after a Q&A session at the \u201cSatoshi Spritz\u201d event in Turin on April 18, Back suggested that quantum computing may force Nakamoto to move their Bitcoin (BTC<\/a>). That\u2019s because, according to Back, Bitcoin holders will be forced to move their assets to newer, quantum-resistant signature-based addresses.<\/p>\n Back said that current quantum computers do not pose a credible threat<\/a> to Bitcoin\u2019s cryptography but will likely threaten it in the future. Back estimated that quantum computers may evolve to that extent in \u201cmaybe 20 years.\u201d<\/p>\n Related: <\/strong><\/em>Bitcoin\u2019s quantum-resistant hard fork is inevitable \u2014 It\u2019s the only chance to fix node incentives<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n When the threat becomes real, Back said the Bitcoin community will have to choose between deprecating old, vulnerable addresses or letting those funds be stolen:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the quantum computers are here, and people at universities and research labs have access, the network has a choice to either let people steal them or to freeze them \u2014 to deprecate the signature.\u201c<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Back expects the community to go with the former option, forcing Bitcoin\u2019s pseudonymous creator to move their funds if they wish to avoid losing them.<\/p>\n Still, Back said that whether such a situation will reveal if Satoshi Nakamoto<\/a> is alive also depends on Bitcoin\u2019s future privacy features.<\/p>\n \u201cIt depends a bit on the technology, there are some research ideas that could add privacy to Bitcoin,\u201d Back said. \u201cSo, possibly there might be a way to fix quantum issues while keeping privacy.\u201c<\/p>\n Related: <\/strong><\/em>Lawyer sues US Homeland Dept to probe supposed Satoshi Nakamoto meeting<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n Still, not everyone is convinced that \u2014 privacy enhancements or not \u2014 such a scenario would reveal whether Nakamoto was alive. An anonymous early Bitcoin miner and member of the Bitcoin community told Cointelegraph that he does not expect Nakamoto\u2019s coins to be moved:<\/p>\n \u201cEven if he is alive and holds the private keys, I do not think he\u2019d move them. Based on how he acted so far I would rather expect him to let the community to decide.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He added that, since this is a controversial choice, it makes sense to let the community decide. He said that he\u2019d be surprised if Nakamoto came out of the woodwork to move the assets.<\/p>\n Back explained that most quantum-resistant signature implementations are either unproven in terms of security or very expensive from a data perspective. He cited Lamport<\/a> signatures as an old and proven design, but pointed out that they weigh tens of kilobytes.<\/p>\n Consequently, he suggested that Bitcoin should be prepared to switch to quantum-resistant signatures but only do so when necessary. He suggested a Bitcoin taproot-based implementation allowing addresses to switch to quantum-resistant signatures when needed.<\/p>\n Magazine: <\/strong><\/em>Bitcoin vs. the quantum computer threat: Timeline and solutions (2025\u20132035)<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<\/picture><\/div>\n
Bitcoins Privacy upgrades could complicate proof<\/h2>\n
Bitcoins A quantum-resistant Bitcoin<\/h2>\n