I have never heard that quantum computers can pose any danger to the hashing function in the version SHA-256.
As far as I understand the principle of unidirectional cryptographic algorithms, they are fundamentally different from the mathematical techniques used in asymmetric cryptography.
Therefore, the stability of SHA-256 is in the same segment (but not similar) as the stability of AES-256. And the stability is not only and not so much to the attack of brute force, but above all to attacks using cryptoanalytic methods.
If RSA-4096 with a longer key length, or cryptography on elliptical curves, or any other asymmetric cryptography, which is based on unproven mathematical hypotheses, assumptions, would be dangerous for quantum calculations only in view of the danger of a brute force attack, no one would look for alternatives to the existing asymmetric systems. And simply increase the length of the key to any desired size. This is especially true for cryptography on elliptical curves.
But no. No new systems with these (or similar) mathematical assumptions are considered at all.
It happens because if the cryptanalysis has already found or will find a solution for these systems, the length of the key will not matter.
I didn't come up with that, I'm just telling you in my own words what I've heard from the world's leaders in cryptography science.
Now the question is.
Why is the length of the key, if an asymmetric system is hacked, irrelevant? It will be the same method of hacking with any key length!
Think about why this is so in RSA and not in AES.
By the way, our good old AES-256 (not even 512) is left by NIST as the main method of symmetric encryption in the post-quantum era.
Why?
Maybe we should keep up with the times and come up with something new?
Why, in post quantum encryption systems, keys with the size of 32 000 bits and much more - with time, it turns out, are cracked (!) and dropped out of the list of candidates?
Maybe they forgot about super-reliable RSA with the key length as much as 4096 bits?
Or they've forgotten about the ECC-512 (blockchain), so reliable that people have moved their capitals into this cryptography. And how many of these daredevils are there? Who knows...
Who knows the answers to these questions?
Topic: How long will existing encryption last? - page 5. (Read 2214 times)
It is distracting, but it was a challenge as well that offered cash prizes. Today, people break it for the pride and honour or some other good feeling.
It's not the encryption itself but maybe the implementation, but in so far as I have heard, 2048 RSA keys are beyond reach from most governments or large private entities that have the capability to even attack it, so 4096 is something that we should be comfortable with for personal correspondence.
Any new factorization techniques discovered will get published and we will all know how to use it, or if it's even usable at all.
128 bit AES was used in a few applications, but I believe they all eventually upgraded to 256 bit AES or offered other algos to choose from.
I don't confuse between your so called monkey brute force and intelligent social engineering, as I've always used the second method if I needed to get into anything. It's always much easier to attack the user or the person than it is to attack the encryption system, which we all know is impervious to anything but brute force.
_------------It's not the encryption itself but maybe the implementation, but in so far as I have heard, 2048 RSA keys are beyond reach from most governments or large private entities that have the capability to even attack it, so 4096 is something that we should be comfortable with for personal correspondence.
Any new factorization techniques discovered will get published and we will all know how to use it, or if it's even usable at all.
128 bit AES was used in a few applications, but I believe they all eventually upgraded to 256 bit AES or offered other algos to choose from.
I don't confuse between your so called monkey brute force and intelligent social engineering, as I've always used the second method if I needed to get into anything. It's always much easier to attack the user or the person than it is to attack the encryption system, which we all know is impervious to anything but brute force.
Everything you write has its basis. At the household level, it's a solid, well-founded position. For example: "I have never heard that..." ...
Perhaps not everything can be heard, not everything is said. But there are words that experts, mathematicians, cryptanalysts say. You can find them if you are creative in this matter. You can check the facts that RSA is never used in serious cases. And only a notebook, a notebook for clothes, a Vernam cipher, the only cipher with Shannon's proven absolute resistance to hacking. You don't have to hear or know any of this, you don't have to worry about it, you don't have to check my words. It is possible not to develop and not to think.
Here's how to answer the question: why are they looking for completely different encryption algorithms, rather than increasing the length of the key in the existing ones, in RSA? If RSA is reliable, does not give in to the mathematical analysis why the given kind of encryption, in all its variants - anybody except us inhabitants is not necessary?
How break postquantum systems if there length of a key 512000 bits? And there is no quantum computer. And they are broken how? Let's make a key in RSA as a milker not 4096 bits, but 521000 bits and we will quietly use it. Why do we need new postquantum encryption systems? Why from hundred candidates, have chosen 10 but none have chosen finally? Maybe they forgot about RSA-4096, which is resistant to hacking?
It is distracting, but it was a challenge as well that offered cash prizes. Today, people break it for the pride and honour or some other good feeling.
It's not the encryption itself but maybe the implementation, but in so far as I have heard, 2048 RSA keys are beyond reach from most governments or large private entities that have the capability to even attack it, so 4096 is something that we should be comfortable with for personal correspondence.
Any new factorization techniques discovered will get published and we will all know how to use it, or if it's even usable at all.
128 bit AES was used in a few applications, but I believe they all eventually upgraded to 256 bit AES or offered other algos to choose from.
I don't confuse between your so called monkey brute force and intelligent social engineering, as I've always used the second method if I needed to get into anything. It's always much easier to attack the user or the person than it is to attack the encryption system, which we all know is impervious to anything but brute force.
It's not the encryption itself but maybe the implementation, but in so far as I have heard, 2048 RSA keys are beyond reach from most governments or large private entities that have the capability to even attack it, so 4096 is something that we should be comfortable with for personal correspondence.
Any new factorization techniques discovered will get published and we will all know how to use it, or if it's even usable at all.
128 bit AES was used in a few applications, but I believe they all eventually upgraded to 256 bit AES or offered other algos to choose from.
I don't confuse between your so called monkey brute force and intelligent social engineering, as I've always used the second method if I needed to get into anything. It's always much easier to attack the user or the person than it is to attack the encryption system, which we all know is impervious to anything but brute force.
i think the current encryption should work for the next 10 years, and no more because with the new quantic computers our lovely sha256 will be obsolete. Encryption should grow at the same rate the technology grows. That's the only way we could walk in a secure way.
Has anyone cracked 4096 bit RSA public key encryption, the same one available to use in GPG?
Has anyone cracked 2048 bit RSA encryption for that matter?
As far as I am aware, the largest RSA that was factored is 795 bits, in November 2019. The CPU time spent on finding these factors amounted to approximately 900 core-years on a 2.1 Ghz Intel Xeon Gold 6130 CPU.
However, we are talking about eliptic curves here, so the situation is a bit different. I am merely responding to the OP's title.
128 to 256 bit symmetric encryption will not be broken in a very long time, so that's not an issue.
-------------------Has anyone cracked 2048 bit RSA encryption for that matter?
As far as I am aware, the largest RSA that was factored is 795 bits, in November 2019. The CPU time spent on finding these factors amounted to approximately 900 core-years on a 2.1 Ghz Intel Xeon Gold 6130 CPU.
However, we are talking about eliptic curves here, so the situation is a bit different. I am merely responding to the OP's title.
128 to 256 bit symmetric encryption will not be broken in a very long time, so that's not an issue.
Unfortunately, you confuse the path of the monkey - this is hacking the system with brute force attack and the path of an intelligent person, the path of cryptanalysis is the mathematical solution to the problem of factorization and hacking RSA.
Quantum computing - just as everyone sees it as a monkey path, as a brute force attack.
But you can go through analysis, even with a quantum computer.
4096-bit RSA keys are easier than 96-bit keys in AES.
Keys in AES less than 128 bits are not used anywhere.
Why so? Because it breaks.
In symmetric systems, the method of comparing plaintext with a ciphercode is a difficult task, you need to have a lot of text, you need to think a lot to calculate the key.
In asymmetric systems, a cryptanalyst always has any amount of plaintext, encrypted text, and the public key is known. The cryptanalyst himself will write any amount of material for analysis - after all, the public key is not hidden. See the difference?
Do not think that someday you will know the mathematical methods of hacking. Why would they tell us about this?
These are big secrets.
Cryptanalysis is a weapon, opening a cipher is a victory.
That was the whole story.
This is a tool that can get a lot of valuable prizes if it remains a secret!
Cryptanalysts live secretly, lead a double life, and are guarded very well.
Why?
Why don't any serious organization use asymmetric cryptography? Because it is a household system, today it is forbidden to use it in important issues. And only symmetric systems are allowed.
No one will make themselves difficult in life just like that.
Do you agree?
It means that they know something, but they are silent.
Who knows - he is always silent. But we can observe and draw conclusions.
Post-quantum cryptography is actively sought after. But they can’t find it yet!
There were cases when the post-quantum system was actively offered, everyone clapped their hands, and then cryptanalysts worked - and the system was withdrawn from the competition.
This is far from an isolated case! This is the path of cryptanalysis.
By the way, the path of a monkey (brute force attack) in post-quantum cryptography is generally not possible even after hundreds of years, even by all super-quantum computers combined. The keys are different in different systems, but keys with a length of 38.64, 256 thousand bits (and not just a bit) are not uncommon there. There are even megabytes - and this is not the limit.
So no one sees the danger of brute-force attack as a danger. Neither today nor tomorrow.
Therefore your example: "As far as I am aware, the largest RSA that was factored is 795 bits, in November 2019." - nothing more than a distracting maneuver from the problem.
Why did they chase new asymmetric systems, if you can simply increase the key length in the same RSA?
A system in which there are principles of factorization or discrete logarithm in the fields of numbers of any magnitude are not considered at all !!! Generally.
Everything, RSA time is over. This is the rudiment that smart people fear.
Why? What was so bad about our asymmetric household systems today?
That’s why, for which there is only one answer - any modern asymmetric system is an ear on clay feet!
Encryption has always existed since the creation and existence of this universe we find ourselves and been modified as years go by. So to answer your question ' How long will existing encryption last', the duration of the existence of a particular encryption will depend on how frequent the people or group that developed the encryption modify their encryption as the technological world keeps advancing. The duration of every encryption depends solely on how its been modify to suit the current state of its ecosystem.
Has anyone cracked 4096 bit RSA public key encryption, the same one available to use in GPG?
Has anyone cracked 2048 bit RSA encryption for that matter?
As far as I am aware, the largest RSA that was factored is 795 bits, in November 2019. The CPU time spent on finding these factors amounted to approximately 900 core-years on a 2.1 Ghz Intel Xeon Gold 6130 CPU.
However, we are talking about eliptic curves here, so the situation is a bit different. I am merely responding to the OP's title.
128 to 256 bit symmetric encryption will not be broken in a very long time, so that's not an issue.
Has anyone cracked 2048 bit RSA encryption for that matter?
As far as I am aware, the largest RSA that was factored is 795 bits, in November 2019. The CPU time spent on finding these factors amounted to approximately 900 core-years on a 2.1 Ghz Intel Xeon Gold 6130 CPU.
However, we are talking about eliptic curves here, so the situation is a bit different. I am merely responding to the OP's title.
128 to 256 bit symmetric encryption will not be broken in a very long time, so that's not an issue.
Although there is a danger to the blockchain, it is still theoretical, expected in the future.
But there is a danger of today, proving in which unsafe world we live, proving the shortcomings of old key and password technologies.
Here is just one example from the press, read a couple of days ago:
"Specialists found on the Web a database with unencrypted email addresses and passwords for more than 1 billion users. Most of the data was a leak put up for sale by a cybercriminal under the pseudonym DoubleFlag in early 2017."
But there is a danger of today, proving in which unsafe world we live, proving the shortcomings of old key and password technologies.
Here is just one example from the press, read a couple of days ago:
"Specialists found on the Web a database with unencrypted email addresses and passwords for more than 1 billion users. Most of the data was a leak put up for sale by a cybercriminal under the pseudonym DoubleFlag in early 2017."
It is just in a matter of regulation that each website should follow. I believe that in most countries they have their regulation and also for integrity purpose of each sites, they need to hash or encrypt all the information that is critical for the users. There is already been a wide span of choice for them to choose, there are many hashing algorithm that they could use, even a very easy one which is the MD5 is already good, but if they could use stronger algorithm such as SHA256 then sites will be reputable and information would be safe and secured.
Perfect is true. Password hashing - this should be the standard. But this is only a partial way out. After all, stealing the password hashes themselves makes the same sense for a hacker as visiting the passwords themselves.
Let's think about it.
1. If the site "knows" only the password hash, and not the password itself, then in general the hacker is completely satisfied with it, it uses a hash that knows the site as a "password" and will be satisfied;
2. If you need to extract the password itself from the hash, for example, for interest (after all, the site does not know the password, because the hash is not reversible, it is not encryption), then the hashing algorithm does not protect the password as we need.
It is selected easily, by software brute force, very quickly, because the hash functions you have chosen are very fast. It is easy to work with them to the cracker. This is an example of an attack when only a hash is known.
Moreover, a complete search is not necessary. One out of 1000 people has a password that looks like a random set of characters in an amount of more than 15 pieces. Everyone else has a password and is shorter than 15 characters and not a random character set.
And such passwords are easily cracked, if you ask how - I will give a link to a program that is absolutely legal, for those who have "forgotten" their password. So it is advertised.
The only protection against theft of passwords and keys is passwordless authentication and its derivative - keyless cryptography.
Who is interested here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/keyless-encryption-and-passwordless-authentication-5204368
And the team that took up this is here:
https://toxic.chat/
Although there is a danger to the blockchain, it is still theoretical, expected in the future.
But there is a danger of today, proving in which unsafe world we live, proving the shortcomings of old key and password technologies.
Here is just one example from the press, read a couple of days ago:
"Specialists found on the Web a database with unencrypted email addresses and passwords for more than 1 billion users. Most of the data was a leak put up for sale by a cybercriminal under the pseudonym DoubleFlag in early 2017."
But there is a danger of today, proving in which unsafe world we live, proving the shortcomings of old key and password technologies.
Here is just one example from the press, read a couple of days ago:
"Specialists found on the Web a database with unencrypted email addresses and passwords for more than 1 billion users. Most of the data was a leak put up for sale by a cybercriminal under the pseudonym DoubleFlag in early 2017."
It is just in a matter of regulation that each website should follow. I believe that in most countries they have their regulation and also for integrity purpose of each sites, they need to hash or encrypt all the information that is critical for the users. There is already been a wide span of choice for them to choose, there are many hashing algorithm that they could use, even a very easy one which is the MD5 is already good, but if they could use stronger algorithm such as SHA256 then sites will be reputable and information would be safe and secured.
Although there is a danger to the blockchain, it is still theoretical, expected in the future.
But there is a danger of today, proving in which unsafe world we live, proving the shortcomings of old key and password technologies.
Here is just one example from the press, read a couple of days ago:
"Specialists found on the Web a database with unencrypted email addresses and passwords for more than 1 billion users. Most of the data was a leak put up for sale by a cybercriminal under the pseudonym DoubleFlag in early 2017."
But there is a danger of today, proving in which unsafe world we live, proving the shortcomings of old key and password technologies.
Here is just one example from the press, read a couple of days ago:
"Specialists found on the Web a database with unencrypted email addresses and passwords for more than 1 billion users. Most of the data was a leak put up for sale by a cybercriminal under the pseudonym DoubleFlag in early 2017."
To summarize all of the above:
1. A conditional hacker does not need to have a quantum computer to carry out attacks. The problem is that companies (and there are more than 5) that own a quantum computer give it to anyone over the network.
2. Cryptography on elliptic curves, with a key length of 256 bits (this is a blockchain bitcoin) to crack, even by brute force attack (this is a method for a monkey man, a person without thinking, which everyone fears most, why?), Is easier than symmetric a system with the same key length a huge number of times, I can’t even write this number down here.
3. Cryptography on elliptic curves is the most controversial system of all about which at least something has been written. It has long been banned in serious matters.
4. There is a large class of weak elliptic curves. Did you check those elliptic curves on which you made your digital signatures on the blockchain? I’m sure it never occurred to you.
And those who standardize and recommend them are themselves interested in having access to your secrets. Do you catch a thought?
5. The opinion of specialists in this field of knowledge.
An international team of researchers led by Divesh Aggarwal of the Singapore Center for Quantum Technology.
They argue that the algorithm for creating a digital signature based on elliptic curves may become vulnerable. The real threat, in their opinion, can be expected by 2027.
6. The opinion of other specialists.
In March 2019, the head of the IBM blockchain direction Jesse Lund also warned about the likelihood of a threat to both the cryptocurrencies themselves and the involved cryptography methods.
“Through reverse engineering, you can achieve private keys that provide access to wallets.” I think this is a real and substantial threat. Bitcoin is a public registry. Thus, you can see on which wallets the largest balances are stored, and then attack them, ”he said.
Lund also noted that over time, the threat posed by the quantum computer will become more urgent. In particular, he emphasized, in the future, quantum computing will be able to calculate private keys using public keys as a template. Thus, according to him, more than half of the existing blockchain systems will be susceptible to this threat.
7. The opinion of experts.
Associate Professor of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Vladimir Gisin believes that quantum computers really pose a certain threat to decentralized systems, blockchains and cryptocurrencies. According to him, the bitcoin blockchain risks being hacked when 100-qubit quantum computers appear.
He also suggested that there may already be successful mechanisms for hacking the Bitcoin blockchain, but nothing is known about them, because their authors do not want to disclose their knowledge.
“All Bitcoin security is based on some hypotheses that are not fully tested. For example, on the hypothesis that forgery of a signature on a bitcoin network is computationally unrealistic with modern computing power.
But this is a hypothesis.
8. David Chaum, the “godfather” of the cipher bank movement and creator of the first anonymous electronic currency eCash, did not ignore the danger of quantum computing. In particular, he emphasized the importance of urgent development of quantum-resistant protocols.
We have no way of knowing how far states have progressed in creating quantum computers.
Government organizations have repeatedly cracked codes and gained access to unprecedented cryptographic capabilities for many years, but no one suspected this.
Already, the crypto industry must change approaches and work closely on the creation of sustainable mechanisms and technologies, - Decrypt quotes Chauma.
1. A conditional hacker does not need to have a quantum computer to carry out attacks. The problem is that companies (and there are more than 5) that own a quantum computer give it to anyone over the network.
2. Cryptography on elliptic curves, with a key length of 256 bits (this is a blockchain bitcoin) to crack, even by brute force attack (this is a method for a monkey man, a person without thinking, which everyone fears most, why?), Is easier than symmetric a system with the same key length a huge number of times, I can’t even write this number down here.
3. Cryptography on elliptic curves is the most controversial system of all about which at least something has been written. It has long been banned in serious matters.
4. There is a large class of weak elliptic curves. Did you check those elliptic curves on which you made your digital signatures on the blockchain? I’m sure it never occurred to you.
And those who standardize and recommend them are themselves interested in having access to your secrets. Do you catch a thought?
5. The opinion of specialists in this field of knowledge.
An international team of researchers led by Divesh Aggarwal of the Singapore Center for Quantum Technology.
They argue that the algorithm for creating a digital signature based on elliptic curves may become vulnerable. The real threat, in their opinion, can be expected by 2027.
6. The opinion of other specialists.
In March 2019, the head of the IBM blockchain direction Jesse Lund also warned about the likelihood of a threat to both the cryptocurrencies themselves and the involved cryptography methods.
“Through reverse engineering, you can achieve private keys that provide access to wallets.” I think this is a real and substantial threat. Bitcoin is a public registry. Thus, you can see on which wallets the largest balances are stored, and then attack them, ”he said.
Lund also noted that over time, the threat posed by the quantum computer will become more urgent. In particular, he emphasized, in the future, quantum computing will be able to calculate private keys using public keys as a template. Thus, according to him, more than half of the existing blockchain systems will be susceptible to this threat.
7. The opinion of experts.
Associate Professor of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Vladimir Gisin believes that quantum computers really pose a certain threat to decentralized systems, blockchains and cryptocurrencies. According to him, the bitcoin blockchain risks being hacked when 100-qubit quantum computers appear.
He also suggested that there may already be successful mechanisms for hacking the Bitcoin blockchain, but nothing is known about them, because their authors do not want to disclose their knowledge.
“All Bitcoin security is based on some hypotheses that are not fully tested. For example, on the hypothesis that forgery of a signature on a bitcoin network is computationally unrealistic with modern computing power.
But this is a hypothesis.
8. David Chaum, the “godfather” of the cipher bank movement and creator of the first anonymous electronic currency eCash, did not ignore the danger of quantum computing. In particular, he emphasized the importance of urgent development of quantum-resistant protocols.
We have no way of knowing how far states have progressed in creating quantum computers.
Government organizations have repeatedly cracked codes and gained access to unprecedented cryptographic capabilities for many years, but no one suspected this.
Already, the crypto industry must change approaches and work closely on the creation of sustainable mechanisms and technologies, - Decrypt quotes Chauma.
The current encryption technology is going to last less than what we predicted before.
Bitcoin's encryption and private keys would be vulnerable by the year 2030.
But only the chief projects working on it would achieve that feat and lets hope none of them would ever attack bitcoin.
Bitcoin's encryption and private keys would be vulnerable by the year 2030.
But only the chief projects working on it would achieve that feat and lets hope none of them would ever attack bitcoin.
I don't even want to mention quantum computers here. This whole idea is in such an early phase that even people working on this technology can't fully understand how to make it compatible with the existing binary software.
How long will the encryption last? Probably as long as there's no real threat to its existence. People have a tendency to upgrade things when they need to. When one country makes a submarine another country makes locating beacons and sonars to detect it and so on. For now there's no impending threat so nobody cares and nobody tries to upgrade the security.
How long will the encryption last? Probably as long as there's no real threat to its existence. People have a tendency to upgrade things when they need to. When one country makes a submarine another country makes locating beacons and sonars to detect it and so on. For now there's no impending threat so nobody cares and nobody tries to upgrade the security.
Google has come up with quantum supremacy through which calculations can be performed in a very short time and the same can't be cracked by the conventional conputer used all around.
This serves to be a tool in the hands of hackers, criminals to crack blockchain based cryptocurrencies like bitcoin ans others to be the targets. Also it is stated to crack the encryption upon which the internet is built on. Later news revealed it isn't that powerful to crack bitcoin. Right now it has got only 53 qbits, to crack the bitcoin there is need for at least 1500 qbits. This way no nees to fear about the encryption of the algorithm.
Objectively, quantum computers were manufactured successfully by Google. It is unique, it will never be mass produced. Just like the way all big companies do, Google will use it as a proprietary tool to provide the most benefits possible. No hacker can afford to own a quantum computer, of course they can't crack bitcoin either. Moreover, quantum computers can't crack bitcoin, as we mentioned above.This serves to be a tool in the hands of hackers, criminals to crack blockchain based cryptocurrencies like bitcoin ans others to be the targets. Also it is stated to crack the encryption upon which the internet is built on. Later news revealed it isn't that powerful to crack bitcoin. Right now it has got only 53 qbits, to crack the bitcoin there is need for at least 1500 qbits. This way no nees to fear about the encryption of the algorithm.
Therefore, it will take a long time for quantum technology to develop more, and of course, the time of encryption is still very long in the future.
It will take a long ass time before Google hits the sweet spot for cracking the algorithm. Heck, our lifetimes may not be enough to see the light at the end of that said tunnel. Needless to say, bitcoin's current encryption is still good to go and is currently quantum resistant by any means. Also, there's no way large companies such as Google will ever use their quantum computers on doing such, and may just use the tech into something else, especially theoretical modeling and running simulations of other important things.
Basically they are bound to obey the regulations about their quantum computer development. It will not be allowed and will be restricted that they use their technology to specifically compromise the cryptocurrency.
In the first place, even us who are using just generic classical computers are also bound to follow the regulation about hacking and compromising a system. There are different Data privacy laws per country and there are also anti cyber criminal laws. What more if the company is like google or ibm, who are a leading company in computer technologies.
And I don't think that google is improving the quantum because of cryptocurrency or compromising other's system just to gain supremacy, it ain't that way. Google and IBM are running for a long time, it is their job to improve and develop our technology. Not even a single quantum computer is recommended to mine crypto coz that would generate so much electricity disproportion to its gains. 
It seems to me that it's impossible to make even an educated guess about that. It might seem nowadays that the progress if fast, and we don't have much time left, but people were sure that trips to Mars would be casual, whereas they still are not even close to that. In a TV series that I mention quite a lot here ('Silicon Valley') the team accidentally came up with an algorithm that compresses information in such a great way and keeps perfecting itself so fast that the strongest encryption there is, is about to get broken. It's a fiction story, of course, but we cannot know whether something like this can happen in 5 years from now, in a hundred years from now or never.
It seems to me that we are reaching the limit of the advancement of computers (transistors cannot become smaller for now, because quantum processes come in), and it's unclear whether we'll even crack quantum physics to make it work to our advantage, but we have to be cautious just in case.
It seems to me that we are reaching the limit of the advancement of computers (transistors cannot become smaller for now, because quantum processes come in), and it's unclear whether we'll even crack quantum physics to make it work to our advantage, but we have to be cautious just in case.
IF it looks like bitcoin's encryption looks likely to be broken, then the developers will simply work on an improved version and we all hard fork into that.
The idea that everyone is just sitting there passively and that there won't be a fight back is nonsense. There is too much money at stake, and I'm sure people are working on improved encryption as we speak.
The idea that everyone is just sitting there passively and that there won't be a fight back is nonsense. There is too much money at stake, and I'm sure people are working on improved encryption as we speak.
It will take a long ass time before Google hits the sweet spot for cracking the algorithm. Heck, our lifetimes may not be enough to see the light at the end of that said tunnel. Needless to say, bitcoin's current encryption is still good to go and is currently quantum resistant by any means. Also, there's no way large companies such as Google will ever use their quantum computers on doing such, and may just use the tech into something else, especially theoretical modeling and running simulations of other important things.
Basically they are bound to obey the regulations about their quantum computer development. It will not be allowed and will be restricted that they use their technology to specifically compromise the cryptocurrency. In the first place, even us who are using just generic classical computers are also bound to follow the regulation about hacking and compromising a system. There are different Data privacy laws per country and there are also anti cyber criminal laws. What more if the company is like google or ibm, who are a leading company in computer technologies.
Yes, this is so ... Organizations building their quantum computers - always operate within the framework of the laws of their country. I also don’t think that the blockchain protocol can be attacked by these quantum calculations.
But there is a danger of cryptography if the possibility of quantum computing is provided to the public, but they are provided.
Our entire digital life, security, is first of all cryptography. If it disappears, all our secrets will disappear. This is more dangerous than the blockchain itself.
Break down, become dangerous - even the Internet transport protocols, which now allow us to conduct operations with bitcoin !!!
1. Quantum computers are only a single occurrence today; approximately 5 companies have announced this loudly. But tomorrow it will become a mass phenomenon. For the reason that the mechanism for improving quantum computers has been launched. I read the latest news and I did not like them. Progress is very rapid. It is possible that in 10-15 years, quantum computers will be in our homes.
We can even conclude a bet.
2. The same Google company paid fines to the European Union for violating the laws of the confidentiality of user data. Moreover, the Google company, and not only it, didn’t do anything by accident. Therefore, it is not necessary to think that only angels work there.
3. And who will forbid companies to create quantum computers in countries or in places where laws are completely not as liberal as in other countries? The world is moving towards a separation of interests rapidly. And breaking laws is becoming more profitable. And our governments are becoming more irresponsible.
The disappearance, compromise, of our cryptography is a disaster for all Internet users!
It will take a long ass time before Google hits the sweet spot for cracking the algorithm. Heck, our lifetimes may not be enough to see the light at the end of that said tunnel. Needless to say, bitcoin's current encryption is still good to go and is currently quantum resistant by any means. Also, there's no way large companies such as Google will ever use their quantum computers on doing such, and may just use the tech into something else, especially theoretical modeling and running simulations of other important things.
Basically they are bound to obey the regulations about their quantum computer development. It will not be allowed and will be restricted that they use their technology to specifically compromise the cryptocurrency. In the first place, even us who are using just generic classical computers are also bound to follow the regulation about hacking and compromising a system. There are different Data privacy laws per country and there are also anti cyber criminal laws. What more if the company is like google or ibm, who are a leading company in computer technologies.
As for the universal trust certification system, which serves to prevent such attacks, in fact, unfortunately, it will not be difficult for a fraudster to get a valid SSL certificate for his fake site - now it can be obtained in 20 minutes using special services.
So do certified phishing sites or phishing sites. It turns out that in real life, simple users need to take care of their own safety, and not rely on the proposed "trust system".
So do certified phishing sites or phishing sites. It turns out that in real life, simple users need to take care of their own safety, and not rely on the proposed "trust system".
Jump to: