#量子计算威胁 The controversy over quantum computing is very clear to me — it's a classic scene in the cycle.

Back in 2011, the Bitcoin community also experienced a similar debate. Some insisted that Bitcoin would be cracked by certain technologies, while others dismissed it as unnecessary worry. Fifteen years have passed, and Bitcoin is still here. But my experience tells me that these debates often reflect not the technical issues themselves, but the interests of the parties involved.

Nic Carter mentioned that 1.7 million Bitcoins are at risk, which sounds alarming. But Jameson Lopp's statement is closer to reality: short-term no worries, transformation will take 5 to 10 years. These two conclusions are not actually contradictory — the issue is who is creating the anxiety and why. I noticed someone pointed out that Carter's fund invests in anti-quantum tools companies, which is quite revealing.

Michael Saylor's words are the most worth pondering: it's not about whether the technology can be upgraded, but whether consensus can be reached. This is Bitcoin's true vulnerability — not quantum computing, but decision-making consensus. Bitcoin's conservatism was once its advantage, and it still can be.

I've seen too many projects die from a sense of "urgency." The real threat often comes from rushed upgrades, not hypothetical scenarios 10 years down the line. This time, it still depends on how the community chooses.