challenged<\/a> the idea that the test marked a real quantum attack on crypto. He argued that the result did not prove a useful quantum method against Bitcoin or modern cryptographic systems.<\/p>\nBack said the test looked closer to statistical guessing than a technical breach. In his view, the quantum computer did not solve the kind of hard problem that protects Bitcoin private keys.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the main criticism focused on the small 15-bit key size. A key of that size has a limited search space, which makes it far easier to test possible answers than real Bitcoin keys.<\/p>\n
Former Bitcoin Core developer Jonas Schnelli also questioned the result. He said the researcher checked about 20,000 possibilities out of 32,497, giving the method a high chance of success without quantum advantage.<\/p>\n
Schnelli described the result as similar to \u201cflipping a coin.\u201d He also said, \u201cQuantum computing contributed nothing useful here,\u201d arguing that the experiment did not show a real threat to crypto security.<\/p>\n
Bitcoin security debate continues<\/strong><\/h2>\nThe claim has raised fresh discussion about quantum computing and Bitcoin. Some market watchers see the Project Eleven result as a step toward future risks, while critics say it does not apply to full-strength cryptography.<\/p>\n
Back maintained that Bitcoin remains far from the reach of current quantum machines. He said quantum systems would likely target state secrets or banking systems before becoming a practical concern for Bitcoin.<\/p>\n
Bitcoin uses far larger key sizes than the one tested in the experiment. For that reason, Back and other skeptics view the challenge as a small-scale test rather than proof that Bitcoin faces an immediate quantum threat.<\/p>\n
The episode shows growing interest in post-quantum security across crypto. However, experts remain divided on whether the Project Eleven result marks real progress or only a controlled experiment with limited market relevance.<\/p>\n
<\/p><\/div>\n