There's already several threads about Bitcoin and quantum computers. Please learn to Google or use the search function.
Locked.
Topic: bitcoin over quantum machinery (Read 218 times)
this is of course old news (mtr article), but i can not really find a lot regarding the topic. anybody else working in this direction?
it is almost 2 years who this kind of article comes out.
i don't care about it..
isn't it like saying 'i don't care about wifi' in 1989?)
No its more like talking about 'cold fusion' in 1988,
A real scientist will walk away from you, a layman will be deeply interested
Talking about Quantum-Computing in any fashion, other than a bunch of REAL physicists at a bar, is non-real
Most of my physics friends all say "I didn't really understand QM until I was drunk and had it explained",
Feynman said "Nobody understand's QM",
When somebody understands QM, then they just might be able to make a QC, until then butter-fly wings will flap in the air,
I will not bother with this 'article' ( two years old), but let me guess its a layman's article? Written in a laymans blog or magazine?
Most of this stuff is not unlike BITCOIN, I venture to say only one in 10k understand the 'real' about bitcoin, and certainly the same could be said of quantum-computers. Much of the talk of BTC on this forum is just the urban myths of BTC, and QC-BTC is the same, not based on fact, but based on religious fervor.
Also, bitcoin could always be forked to a quantum resistant algorithm.
and this is not all...
the value from the old and no more secured block chain will be transfered to the new one... secured and ready to continue pump!
Yawn.
Every time an idiot wants attention hs/he writes something about bitcoin.
The mathematical techniques used to secure bitcoin did not fall from the sky, neither are they being used in isolation in only bitcoin.
It's also used to secure a whole lot of things other than bitcoin so even if ECDSA is broken, bitcoin wouldn't be the first target.
Also, bitcoin could always be forked to a quantum resistant algorithm.
Every time an idiot wants attention hs/he writes something about bitcoin.
The mathematical techniques used to secure bitcoin did not fall from the sky, neither are they being used in isolation in only bitcoin.
It's also used to secure a whole lot of things other than bitcoin so even if ECDSA is broken, bitcoin wouldn't be the first target.
Also, bitcoin could always be forked to a quantum resistant algorithm.
i don't think you can get any attention with that post. buut with some more info about quantum-resustant algo you def would get all it all
Yawn.
Every time an idiot wants attention hs/he writes something about bitcoin.
The mathematical techniques used to secure bitcoin did not fall from the sky, neither are they being used in isolation in only bitcoin.
It's also used to secure a whole lot of things other than bitcoin so even if ECDSA is broken, bitcoin wouldn't be the first target.
Also, bitcoin could always be forked to a quantum resistant algorithm.
Every time an idiot wants attention hs/he writes something about bitcoin.
The mathematical techniques used to secure bitcoin did not fall from the sky, neither are they being used in isolation in only bitcoin.
It's also used to secure a whole lot of things other than bitcoin so even if ECDSA is broken, bitcoin wouldn't be the first target.
Also, bitcoin could always be forked to a quantum resistant algorithm.
this is of course old news (mtr article), but i can not really find a lot regarding the topic. anybody else working in this direction?
it is almost 2 years who this kind of article comes out.
i don't care about it..
isn't it like saying 'i don't care about wifi' in 1989?)
hum.. i really think are 2 different complessivity levels
its still very far, but the fact that major players are already competing for the standard write-up means its coming
this is of course old news (mtr article), but i can not really find a lot regarding the topic. anybody else working in this direction?
it is almost 2 years who this kind of article comes out.
i don't care about it..
isn't it like saying 'i don't care about wifi' in 1989?)
hum.. i really think are 2 different complessivity levels
this is of course old news (mtr article), but i can not really find a lot regarding the topic. anybody else working in this direction?
it is almost 2 years who this kind of article comes out.
i don't care about it..
isn't it like saying 'i don't care about wifi' in 1989?)
this is of course old news (mtr article), but i can not really find a lot regarding the topic. anybody else working in this direction?
it is almost 2 years who this kind of article comes out.
i don't care about it..
this is of course old news (mtr article), but i can not really find a lot regarding the topic. anybody else working in this direction?
Jump to: