Topic: 512-qubit Quantum Computer acquired, is bitcoin doomed? - page 4. (Read 12209 times)
No it's not.
Quickly sell all your bitcoins! Oh wait nevermind you guys are already working on that. Tnx for cheap coins.
here is a defacto sticky on QC's
Quote
No.
By the time QC gets used for cryptocracking or mining, Bitcoin will be using entanglement cryptography. 
Even if D-WAVE could do SHA256 the best algorithm for brute forcing it using quantum computers in 2^(n/2) compared with 2^n for classical computers.
By implementing SHA512, bitcoins would be just as secure from quantum computers as they are from classical computers.
See for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size#Effect_of_quantum_computing_attacks_on_key_strength
By implementing SHA512, bitcoins would be just as secure from quantum computers as they are from classical computers.
See for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size#Effect_of_quantum_computing_attacks_on_key_strength
The threat of Quantum computers isn't breaking SHA256 (or any hashing algorithm) it is in theory performing a faster than brute force attack on public key cryptography such as ECDSA used by Bitcoin but the system in the OP isn't a threat to Bitcoin for a variety of reasons.
First, how about read the actual original article instead of someone's interpretation of it: http://www.nature.com/news/google-and-nasa-snap-up-quantum-computer-1.12999
Second, the article notes that any problem designed for this computer can still be done faster on existing classical computing resources.
Second, the article notes that any problem designed for this computer can still be done faster on existing classical computing resources.
Well, the article doesn't quite say that (and in fact it's thought this type of device, more evolved, may be able to yield results vastly faster than any conventional computer, on large optimization problems).
But it does amusingly present a superposition of answers, both implying -- and not implying! -- that this particular device may be faster than conventional computers at what it does:
Quote
D-Wave hired an outside expert in algorithm-racing, who concluded that the speed of the D-Wave Two was above average overall, and that it was 3,600 times faster than a leading conventional computer when working on the specific type of problem that the quantum computer was built to solve.
Whether D-Wave will make for faster-running or better artificial-intelligence systems is yet to be seen. Lidar says that he has seen faster solvers. “Every problem we have tested can still be solved faster on classical computers,” he says.
Whether D-Wave will make for faster-running or better artificial-intelligence systems is yet to be seen. Lidar says that he has seen faster solvers. “Every problem we have tested can still be solved faster on classical computers,” he says.
What would matter to us is whether these annealing devices can be used for universal quantum computing. Surprisingly, there are claims that this should be possible, though the number of qubits required would be greater than with a gate-based system, and there might be sacrifices in speed as well.
Regardless, there are enough reasonable paths to true quantum computing that in a few years it seems we will want to upgrade at least the signing protocol, or stop the convenient practice of reusing bitcoin addresses after the first spend.
The latter option would bring an end to static vanity, donation, and green addresses (though the last two could be replaced with other, dynamic mechanisms if needed).
I want to pre-order USB powered Quavalon mining rig that do 1PH/s 
Is Butterfly Labs taking preorders for those yet?
Absolutely, delivery is scheduled for October.
Even if D-WAVE could do SHA256 the best algorithm for brute forcing it using quantum computers in 2^(n/2) compared with 2^n for classical computers.
By implementing SHA512, bitcoins would be just as secure from quantum computers as they are from classical computers.
See for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size#Effect_of_quantum_computing_attacks_on_key_strength
By implementing SHA512, bitcoins would be just as secure from quantum computers as they are from classical computers.
See for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size#Effect_of_quantum_computing_attacks_on_key_strength
Scott Aaronson has commented numerous times on the so-called quantum computer produced by D-Wave. Here is an excerpt from his blog (full article available at http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=954):
"The second question is one that I’ve encountered many times on the blogosphere: who cares how D-Wave’s system works, and whether it does or doesn’t exploit quantum coherence, as long as it solves practical problems faster? Sure, maybe what D-Wave is building is really a series of interesting, useful, but still basically “classical” annealing devices. Maybe the word “quantum” is functioning here as the stone in a stone soup: attracting money, interest, and talented people to build something that, while neat, ultimately doesn’t much depend on quantum mechanics at all. As long as D-Wave’s (literal!) black box solves the problem instances in such-and-such amount of time, why does it matter what’s inside?"
"To see the obtuseness of this question, consider a simple thought experiment: suppose D-Wave were marketing a classical, special-purpose, $10-million computer designed to perform simulated annealing, for 90-bit Ising spin glass problems with a certain fixed topology, somewhat better than an off-the-shelf computing cluster. Would there be even 5% of the public interest that there is now? I think D-Wave itself would be the first to admit the answer is no."
A brief summary is that the D-Wave "quantum computer" referenced by the OP may not even be a quantum computer and will certainly not be a threat to Bitcoin without further major scientific breakthroughs.
Here is Scott's Bio from his latest book, "Quantum Computing since Democritus," which is highly recommended for those interested in the subject:
Scott Aaronson is an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Considered one of the top quantum complexity theorists in the world, he is well known both for his research in quantum computing and computational complexity theory, and for his widely read blog Shtetl-Optimized. Professor Aaronson also created Complexity Zoo, an online encyclopedia of computational complexity theory, and has written popular articles for Scientific American and The New York Times. His research and popular writing have earned him numerous awards, including the United States Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers and the Alan T. Waterman Award.
"The second question is one that I’ve encountered many times on the blogosphere: who cares how D-Wave’s system works, and whether it does or doesn’t exploit quantum coherence, as long as it solves practical problems faster? Sure, maybe what D-Wave is building is really a series of interesting, useful, but still basically “classical” annealing devices. Maybe the word “quantum” is functioning here as the stone in a stone soup: attracting money, interest, and talented people to build something that, while neat, ultimately doesn’t much depend on quantum mechanics at all. As long as D-Wave’s (literal!) black box solves the problem instances in such-and-such amount of time, why does it matter what’s inside?"
"To see the obtuseness of this question, consider a simple thought experiment: suppose D-Wave were marketing a classical, special-purpose, $10-million computer designed to perform simulated annealing, for 90-bit Ising spin glass problems with a certain fixed topology, somewhat better than an off-the-shelf computing cluster. Would there be even 5% of the public interest that there is now? I think D-Wave itself would be the first to admit the answer is no."
A brief summary is that the D-Wave "quantum computer" referenced by the OP may not even be a quantum computer and will certainly not be a threat to Bitcoin without further major scientific breakthroughs.
Here is Scott's Bio from his latest book, "Quantum Computing since Democritus," which is highly recommended for those interested in the subject:
Scott Aaronson is an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Considered one of the top quantum complexity theorists in the world, he is well known both for his research in quantum computing and computational complexity theory, and for his widely read blog Shtetl-Optimized. Professor Aaronson also created Complexity Zoo, an online encyclopedia of computational complexity theory, and has written popular articles for Scientific American and The New York Times. His research and popular writing have earned him numerous awards, including the United States Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers and the Alan T. Waterman Award.
Have you seen Hash Grease? It uses quantum technology from NASA.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hash-grease-240760
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hash-grease-240760
Touché
it is both doomed and not doomed at the same time.
Yes, this is the correct answer.No, it is not. It is doomed, it is not doomed and it is both doomed and not doomed. In quantum world, there are three states.
Wrong, number of states is a very big but finite number.
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
it is both doomed and not doomed at the same time.
Yes, this is the correct answer.No, it is not. It is doomed, it is not doomed and it is both doomed and not doomed. In quantum world, there are three states.
Wrong, number of states is a very big but finite number.
Wrong
Wrong
it is both doomed and not doomed at the same time.
Yes, this is the correct answer.No, it is not. It is doomed, it is not doomed and it is both doomed and not doomed. In quantum world, there are three states.
Wrong, number of states is a very big but finite number.
Wrong
it is both doomed and not doomed at the same time.
Yes, this is the correct answer.No, it is not. It is doomed, it is not doomed and it is both doomed and not doomed. In quantum world, there are three states.
Wrong, number of states is a very big but finite number.
it is both doomed and not doomed at the same time.
Yes, this is the correct answer.No, it is not. It is doomed, it is not doomed and it is both doomed and not doomed. In quantum world, there are three states.
it is both doomed and not doomed at the same time.
Yes, this is the correct answer.Quote
512-qubit Quantum Computer acquired, is bitcoin doomed?
Qubit Quantum Computer = Qubitcoin. 
and, EVERYBODY PANIC
I want to pre-order USB powered Quavalon mining rig that do 1PH/s
A multi million dollar machine set to get kill bitcoins doesn't make a lot of sense.
Jump to: