Faced with quantum threats, Bitcoin core developers have chosen to ignore them

Title: Bitcoin Developers Are Mostly Not Concerned About Quantum Risk
Author: NIC CARTER
Translation: Peggy, BlockBeats

Original Source:
Reprinted from: Mars Finance

Editor’s Note: Will quantum computing become Bitcoin’s “next survival test”? While there are researchers and technical proposals within the community addressing this issue, the ultimate decision-making always resides with a small core group of influential developers.

This article systematically reviews the public stances of Bitcoin’s main developers on quantum risks and finds that: within the top decision-making circles, quantum threats are still generally viewed as distant, theoretical issues rather than urgent engineering challenges. The ongoing efforts of a few researchers have yet to translate into consensus or action, and are unlikely to shift the inertia of core governance structures.

Below is the original text:

Recently, some Bitcoin developers have started to counter my and others’ claims that Bitcoin developers do not care about the risks posed by quantum computing.

They believe that, when weighted by influence, most Bitcoin developers have either given long timelines or outright denied this threat. This should be obvious to anyone who has seriously followed the discussions. But let’s examine Matt’s statements specifically.

I’ve known roughly the situation all along, given my ongoing engagement with these discussions, but after doing this review, I am still surprised by the depth of indifference shown by the most important developers.

A brief note on methodology: If you’re unfamiliar, the “power leverage” in Bitcoin development is deliberately kept opaque. When Craig Wright has harassed Bitcoin developers legally, some have chosen to “step back” or “retire,” yet still contribute code to avoid legal issues. The “Core Maintainers” list—those who push updates into Bitcoin Core—is not the list of “most important Bitcoin figures,” but rather trusted bureaucrats responsible for implementing changes. Since Gavin Andresen, these individuals have intentionally distanced themselves from Bitcoin’s responsibility and ownership. They emphasize that they do not “control” Bitcoin but act based on a vague stakeholder consensus. They often claim to represent the “will of the people,” in a near-Rousseauian sense.

Of course, they do not actually consult global Bitcoin users on proposed changes. The real process is: if you can persuade about five or six of the most influential developers that a change is important, it might be pushed through. This is extremely difficult and rare, so changes almost never happen. Over the past decade, Bitcoin has only had two updates. Because of this structure, any change requires consensus among all “important” parties, leading to deadlock and inaction. This state has been barely manageable so far; but when Bitcoin faces an uncertain yet accelerating threat requiring significant adjustments, this governance structure becomes highly unsuitable. Historically, Bitcoin has never faced a true existential crisis; the last major threats in 2010 and 2013 were manageable because the governance was sufficiently centralized to deploy quick fixes.

Therefore, although such an approach is almost “heretical” in Bitcoin terms and likely to annoy developers—since it exposes the deliberate maintenance of an “unstructured” governance reality—I will attempt to assess: which developers hold the greatest “perceived authority.”

(Brief background: I have studied Bitcoin professionally for ten years, with my master’s thesis on Bitcoin governance; I have provided funding support to Bitcoin development organizations via Castle Island; I have spoken at multiple Bitcoin conferences; and I have met and interacted with many of the developers mentioned here. No one can fully map out Bitcoin governance power, but I am closer to this reality than most.)

I am aware that ranking Bitcoin developers by “influence” will upset many, but for this analysis, it’s unavoidable. We need to identify who the real gatekeepers are to evaluate whether the most influential developers are truly prioritizing quantum risks. You can challenge my ranking or suggest alternative criteria, but the only thing that matters is whether I’ve accurately identified those key gatekeepers.

This is so difficult because Bitcoin developers deliberately keep the power structure opaque. I have long followed this issue and have a fairly clear judgment of “who is truly important,” but even so, it remains an extremely challenging task. The reason is simple: developers want it to stay that way.

The green labels indicate maintainers. The list is not complete and may contain errors. The influence ranking reflects my personal subjective judgment.

In my view, the most important Bitcoin developers/founders include: Pieter Wuille (undoubtedly first), Greg Maxwell, Jonas Nick, Anthony Towns, Adam Back, Alex Morcos, Marco Falke, Andrew Poelstra, Mara van der Laan, and Peter Todd. Their affiliated organizations are listed in the table.

Pieter Wuille is co-author of SegWit and the main author of Taproot—Bitcoin’s only two major upgrades in the past decade. He created libsecp256k1, authored the Schnorr signature standard, and co-proposed BIP9. In terms of pushing major technical changes, he is by far the most influential Bitcoin developer, no contest.

Mara van der Laan (formerly Wlad) served as Bitcoin Core’s lead maintainer from 2014 to 2021, officially retired in 2023, but apparently has returned in some significant capacity.

Michael Ford is one of the longest-serving current Core maintainers, influential despite not directly authoring BIPs.

Andrew Poelstra is the most low-profile among high-impact developers but has enormous influence—like “the developer among developers,” somewhat akin to Steely Dan. He is a co-author of Taproot and Schnorr implementations and has made significant contributions to cryptography.

Morcos manages a key developer organization, Chaincode. Michael Ford is currently the most prolific Core maintainer. Greg Maxwell is a legendary, outspoken developer. Adam Back is cited in the Bitcoin whitepaper, co-inventor of Hashcash, and head of Blockstream.

Marco Falke was a highly active reviewer in Core, though he stepped down from key maintainer roles in 2023. Jonas Nick is one of the main authors of Taproot. Peter Todd is a long-active, broad-ranging Bitcoin developer, known for inventing RBF and other mechanisms to counteract malicious thinking and prevent insecure changes.

I initially would have included Luke Dashjr, but his influence has waned recently.

Each of these individuals wields considerable “soft power.” They collectively decide whether an update is taken seriously and ultimately implemented. If you cannot persuade nearly all of these people that your update is “very important,” it’s unlikely to happen. The “High Priests of Bitcoin” are precisely these people.¹

The rest of the list of developers and thinkers is also important—after all, only dozens of people are guarding a trillion-dollar asset. I do not mean to diminish their contributions—but in my view, they are not gatekeepers. Nonetheless, their opinions are influential, so I include them here.

How the most influential Bitcoin developers view quantum risk

Let’s start with the “High Priests.”

Pieter Wuille, February 2025

I agree that there is no urgency at present; but if (and only if) a quantum computer capable of breaking cryptography actually becomes reality, the entire ecosystem will have no choice but to disable those spending schemes that have been compromised, and this must be done before such machines appear.

April 2025

I am not fully convinced by Ethan Heilman’s proposal in terms of feasibility, but I am glad to see this direction of thought and discussion.

July 2025

I believe that, at least in the medium term, the main quantum-related threat to Bitcoin is not the actual emergence of cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQCs), but whether people believe they might appear soon.

I do not say such machines will never appear, but I think the fear of their imminent arrival will influence the ecosystem sooner and more significantly. It’s important to clarify that I am not advocating any specific action—be it BIP, timeline, technical path, or whether to act at all.

Wuille has engaged in discussions on quantum risks but does not see it as an urgent issue. To him, the concern is more about people selling off assets out of fear (which is indeed happening).

Mara van der Laan, June 2015

In the most extreme scenario: if secp256k1 or SHA256 show obvious weaknesses, or practical quantum computers become powerful enough to factor the discrete logarithm of that scale, I have no doubt everyone would agree to introduce new cryptography.

Mara has long been a Bitcoin Core maintainer, retired, then returned. She has mentioned quantum issues in earlier writings but did not explicitly state whether she perceives a risk.

Peter Todd, July 2025

Despite many claims about progress in quantum hardware, the reality remains: no one is close to demonstrating a quantum computer with cryptographic capabilities. The cryptographic ability of real hardware is almost laughable.

Whether they are physically feasible remains unknown; aside from physicists trying to sell you quantum computers or research funding, mainstream views hold that such machines are physically impossible.

Adam Back, November 2025

Maybe it will take 20–40 years, or maybe never. Quantum-safe signatures already exist; NIST standardized SLH-DSA last year. Bitcoin can gradually adopt these as the evaluation progresses, well before cryptographically relevant quantum computers appear.

Although Adam Back’s organization is indeed researching post-quantum solutions, his personal judgment is that it’s at least decades away and not something to worry about now. He has even publicly dismissed my concerns as FUD.

In my view, this attitude undermines the credibility of his organization’s research—if the CEO is making such statements, I find it hard to see how Blockstream’s research can be used to argue that “developers are worried about quantum risks.”

Gloria Zhao, August 2024

I think people sometimes worry about quantum computers, and this concern, on a 30–50 year timescale, is actually more interesting than worrying about AI attacking Bitcoin.

Greg Maxwell, December 2025

Greg has discussed post-quantum signatures in some rare exchanges but has not expressed a clear judgment on the risk. (I even reviewed his entire Reddit history.) Given his typically strong opinions, this silence is unusual.

Jonas Nick, February 2025

Thanks for your work on BIP360. I think now is a good time to develop and discuss concrete post-quantum solutions.

Fortunately, Jonas is one of the most active researchers in Bitcoin’s post-quantum field and has published papers on hash-based post-quantum signatures.

Anthony Towns discussed quantum attacks in 2018 but did not explicitly assess the risk.

Andrew Poelstra has not publicly commented on the risk but stated in 2021 that Taproot would not introduce quantum vulnerabilities.

To my knowledge, Alex Morcos, Michael Ford, and Marco Falke have never publicly mentioned quantum risks; I infer they are not concerned (correct me if I’m wrong).

Summary

Overall, most of Bitcoin’s most influential developers have never explicitly acknowledged quantum risk. Those who have (except Jonas Nick) generally see it as theoretical, distant, or unactionable. Peter Todd and Adam Back explicitly deny the risk. Wuille, Zhao, and Back see it as a concern 30–50 years away. Van der Laan, Poelstra, Maxwell, Towns, Morcos, Falke have either never commented or refused to discuss publicly.

Among the top tier, only Jonas Nick has explicitly expressed concern.

Serious attention exists below the power line. Researchers like Heilman, Shikhelman, Milton are working earnestly; Lopp continues to promote discussion rationally—I genuinely appreciate this. Hunter Beast and his team are the most practically involved, trying to address a specific aspect through a named BIP (Taproot’s quantum vulnerability). But so far, BIP360 faces complete indifference among “opinion makers.”

Don’t be misled by statements from Adam Back or Matt Corallo. Among the most influential Bitcoin developers, there is indeed a pathological indifference. Despite some bright spots, overall, quantum migration is clearly not a priority for Bitcoin Core and its main funding institutions.