A brief story from XA brief story from X

It all started when Saylor posted about quantum computers on X:

This started everybody going off on quantum risk again. It doesn't really matter what they were all saying.

Then Adam Back tried to clarify a point about Bitcoin and cryptography.

This was probably unhelpful and a little pedantic. But it inspired ever-rising star Nic Carter to weigh in:

Carter's post got @nvk to join the chat.

Of course, Carter couldn't let this go.

The conversation spirals out from here in many typical and uninteresting ways, but there is this one last bit between nvk and Lopp:

Should we engage in appeasement?Should we engage in appeasement?

Whether you assess the risk posed by cryptographically relevant quantum computers to be high, low, or non-existent, you may still find yourself in the position of wanting to deal with the people who are pushing quantum computer fud.

Let us assume for the moment that we all have pretty clear conviction that quantum computers are not going to pose a threat to bitcoin in the next ten years. Is there value in conciliating the suits (Saylor and Carter and the ETF bros) if they are worked up about quantum fud? Not that we make any changes necessarily, but to make them feel heard, as they say.

Carter has been writing a series of blog posts about the quantum risk on his blog (#1295184), and is clearly invested in the issue. I can easily see a world where people like Saylor or Larry Fink also convince themselves that this is a reason/excuse to change Bitcoin.

How much does it behoove us to make them feel like their concerns are being taken seriously?

...or are they all scammers?...or are they all scammers?

One point that has nettled me is the constant refrain that "the devs" don't take quantum stuff seriously or "flat-out deny" that it's a problem. If you read Optech's 2025 review, there's a whole section on work on quantum resistance that is hardly trivial.

The constant claims by people like Udi and Nic Carter that Bitcoin devs aren't paying attention to quantum feel a little duplicitous to me. Despite this, it may still make sense to take the time to engage in the conversation about quantum for no other reason than to keep them from doing some kind of crazy fork thing on their own.

I appreciated this response by James OBierne