{"id":127479,"date":"2025-04-18T14:17:27","date_gmt":"2025-04-18T14:17:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/?p=127479"},"modified":"2025-04-18T14:17:27","modified_gmt":"2025-04-18T14:17:27","slug":"quantum-computers-likely-to-reveal-if-satoshi-is-alive-adam-back","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/?p=127479","title":{"rendered":"Quantum computers likely to reveal if Satoshi is alive \u2014 Adam Back"},"content":{"rendered":"

Source: Cointelegraph.com NewsEarly 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.
\nDuring 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). That\u2019s because, according to Back, Bitcoin holders will be forced to move their assets to newer, quantum-resistant signature-based addresses.
\nBack said that current quantum computers do not pose a credible threat 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
\nRelated: Bitcoin\u2019s quantum-resistant hard fork is inevitable \u2014 It\u2019s the only chance to fix node incentives
\nWhen the threat becomes real, Back said the Bitcoin community will have to choose between deprecating old, vulnerable addresses or letting those funds be stolen:
\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
\nBack 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.
\nPrivacy upgrades could complicate proof
\nStill, Back said that whether such a situation will reveal if Satoshi Nakamoto is alive also depends on Bitcoin\u2019s future privacy features.
\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
\nRelated: Lawyer sues US Homeland Dept to probe supposed Satoshi Nakamoto meeting
\nStill, 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:
\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
\nHe 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.
\nA quantum-resistant Bitcoin
\nBack explained that most quantum-resistant signature implementations are either unproven in terms of security or very expensive from a data perspective. He cited Lamport signatures as an old and proven design, but pointed out that they weigh tens of kilobytes.
\nConsequently, 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.
\nMagazine: Bitcoin vs. the quantum computer threat: Timeline and solutions (2025\u20132035)Read More<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Source: Cointelegraph.com NewsEarly 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. During… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127479"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=127479"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127479\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=127479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=127479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/cryptospotters.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=127479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}