TL;DR
- Quantum Debate: Samson Mow warned that rushing a post‑quantum upgrade for Bitcoin could introduce new vulnerabilities and weaken the network before quantum computers become a real threat.
- Performance Risks: He highlighted that PQ signatures may be dramatically larger, reducing Bitcoin throughput and potentially triggering renewed conflict over block size and network efficiency.
- Caution First: Mow said Bitcoin should continue researching quantum‑resistant options but avoid rapid changes, arguing that quantum computers remain years away and that premature action could harm Bitcoin more than help it.
Bitcoin is once again at the center of a technical debate after Samson Mow warned that rushing a post‑quantum upgrade could expose the network to new weaknesses. His comments followed calls from Coinbase executives urging faster preparation for quantum threats, prompting a broader discussion about how Bitcoin should evolve without compromising its current security.
It’s been almost 10 years since the Blocksize Wars ended and Brian hasn’t changed at all.
He still carries the exact same complete lack of humility and understanding. Brian forms the opinion first, along with a prescribed course of action and timeframe, instead of starting by… https://t.co/Ti7QV63e7P
— Samson Mow (@Excellion) April 4, 2026
Rising Tensions Over Quantum Readiness
Mow responded on X to remarks from Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and chief security officer Philip Martin, who argued that the industry should accelerate work on post‑quantum protections. He acknowledged that future quantum computers could challenge BTC but stressed that hasty changes risk undermining the network today. He cautioned that BTC must avoid introducing compatibility issues or inefficiencies that could weaken its defenses long before quantum machines become practical.
Concerns About Signature Size and Network Performance
A major point of contention is the impact of post‑quantum signatures. Mow noted that PQ signatures could be 10 to 125 times larger than current ones, citing former Bitcoin developer Jonas Schnelli. He argued that such a shift would strain block capacity and reduce throughput, creating new bottlenecks for BTC. He warned that BTC could become more vulnerable to conventional attacks if developers prioritize distant quantum threats over immediate operational stability.
Echoes of the Block Size Wars
Mow suggested that oversized signatures could reignite the block size debate that once divided the BTC community. The original conflict, which peaked in 2017, centered on whether increasing the block size would compromise decentralization. Mow said a rushed quantum fix could trigger a similar dispute, raising questions about who shapes BTC’s future and how the network should scale without sacrificing its core principles.
Preparing Without Rushing the Transition
Despite his warnings, Mow emphasized that research into post‑quantum solutions for Bitcoin should continue. He argued that quantum computers likely remain 10 to 20 years away, making urgency counterproductive. He said the worst outcome would be weakening Bitcoin now in an attempt to solve a problem that has not yet materialized. At the time of writing, Bitcoin is trading at around $69,400 after gaining almost 4%.
