- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
Blockstream CEO Adam Back accused Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter of spreading “uninformed noise” about quantum threats to Bitcoin, igniting a public clash over whether the industry is prepared for future cryptographic attacks.
The dispute, which played out on X (formerly Twitter), matters beyond personal disagreement. It reflects a broader split among developers, venture capitalists, and investors over timelines, incentives, and how openly potential existential risks to Bitcoin should be discussed.
At the center of the debate is Carter’s explanation of why Castle Island Ventures invested in Project Eleven, a startup focused on developing defenses against future quantum attacks on Bitcoin and other blockchain networks.
Carter has argued that even if large-scale quantum attacks are not imminent, early preparation is essential given the stakes involved.
Back responded forcefully, rejecting the idea that Bitcoin developers are ignoring the problem. In a post on Friday, he criticized Carter’s public framing of the issue.
“You make uninformed noise and try to move the market or something. You’re not helping,” — Adam Back, CEO, Blockstream.
Back’s central argument is that work on quantum resistance is already happening, but deliberately outside the spotlight.
According to him, Bitcoin’s technical community prefers careful research and gradual upgrades over public alarm that could mislead investors or distort market sentiment.
“Others are working on it, and not everyone can work on it as it’s cryptography and newer algorithms,” Back wrote, pointing to Blockstream Research’s role in advancing Bitcoin cryptography, including Schnorr signatures, MuSig, and Taproot.
In his view, post-quantum (PQ) research follows the same pattern: slow, specialized, and unsuited to social-media driven urgency.
Carter, however, strongly disagrees with the notion that quiet preparation is sufficient. He argues that a significant portion of the Bitcoin ecosystem remains in “total denial” about the seriousness of quantum computing as a future attack vector.
In an October 20 Substack post, Carter said he disclosed Castle Island’s investment in Project Eleven upfront, pushing back against suggestions that he was talking about his book.
“I disclosed this in the first sentence of my main article on quantum. Can’t get more transparent than that,” — Nic Carter, Founding Partner, Castle Island Ventures.
Carter has described himself as having been “quantum pilled” after extensive discussions with Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden.
Those conversations, he said, convinced him that while quantum attacks may not be imminent, the probability is high enough and the consequences severe enough to justify early capital allocation.
“I became extremely concerned about quantum threats to blockchains. I put capital behind my convictions, always have,” — Nic Carter, Founding Partner, Castle Island Ventures.
His argument rests on several trends investors are already watching closely: governments preparing for a post-quantum cryptographic era, rising venture and public funding for quantum computing firms, and the possibility that Bitcoin’s high market value could itself act as an incentive for breakthroughs aimed at cracking existing cryptographic standards.
From this perspective, Carter sees public debate not as fear-mongering, but as a necessary catalyst for coordination and urgency in a decentralized ecosystem that lacks a central decision-maker.
The Back-Carter exchange is part of a wider debate that continues to divide market participants.
Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, recently warned that quantum computing could pose a credible threat to Bitcoin within two to nine years if the network does not migrate to quantum-resistant cryptography in time.
Such projections, while contested, have caught the attention of long-term investors focused on Bitcoin’s durability as a store of value.
Others remain deeply skeptical. High-profile investor Kevin O’Leary has argued that using quantum machines to attack Bitcoin would be an inefficient use of the technology, suggesting that sectors like medicine, materials science, and artificial intelligence offer far greater economic returns.
Back himself has acknowledged the importance of making Bitcoin “quantum ready,” but insists that practical threats remain far off.
He has described current quantum technology as “ridiculously early,” emphasizing unresolved research hurdles, high costs, and limited real-world capabilities.
What is clear is that quantum computing has moved from an abstract academic topic into a live strategic debate within Bitcoin’s ecosystem.
As capital continues to flow into both Bitcoin and quantum research, investors may increasingly have to decide which interpretation and which timeline they believe.
