Bitcoin’s Quantum Debate Heats Up As Adam Back Challenges Nic Carter

Blockstream CEO Adam Back publicly rebuked Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter after Carter explained why his firm backed Project Eleven, a startup that says it will protect bitcoin and other crypto assets from quantum computing risks.

Back told Carter on X that his posts made “uninformed noise” and that they were “not helping.” The exchange highlighted a sharper split in the Bitcoin community over how loudly to warn about future threats.

Back Calls Out Public Warnings

According to Back, Bitcoin developers are not ignoring quantum risks; the work is happening quietly. He argued the technology is still “ridiculously early” and predicted no real threat for a few decades.

Based on reports, Back welcomed the idea of being “quantum ready” while urging calm in public messaging, saying loud alarms can cause confusion rather than useful action.

Carter pushed back, saying he had been “quantum pilled” after conversations with Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden and that he invested because he became deeply concerned.

Carter also pointed out that he disclosed his financial stake in a Substack post on Oct. 20, and he accused some developers of being in “total denial.”

He warned that governments are planning for a post-quantum era and called Bitcoin itself a tempting “bug bounty” if the cryptography is left unchanged.

Experts Divided On Timing

Capriole Investments founder Charles Edwards told followers that a quantum threat could show up in as little as two to nine years unless networks move to quantum-resistant cryptography.

According to public statements from Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, forecasting models place roughly a 20% chance that machines able to break today’s public-key cryptography could arrive before 2030, with a median projection nearer 2040.

Vitalik has said no such machines exist today but has urged early preparation because migrating a global system takes years.

Other voices are less alarmed. Multimillionaire investor Kevin O’Leary said he doubts breaking Bitcoin with quantum computing would be the best use of the technology, arguing it would deliver more value in fields like medical research.

Such comments show how views vary not only on timing but also on the practical incentives behind a quantum attack.

Technical specialists point out one clear fact: there is currently no quantum computer capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography.

That fact has not stopped investors from placing bets on startups that claim to build protective tools.

Castle Island’s investment, which resurfaced on social media recently, spurred fresh debate about transparency and whether public warnings help or harm the ecosystem.

Featured image from Quartz, chart from TradingView