Topic: Is quantum computing threat to Bitcoin ? (Read 1012 times)

well there are just possibilities on paper not on hard-ground since building a successful quantum will take few more years, currently only D-Wave have quantum computer even its on its testing ground, and price is that much high that not everyone can access it,

I think Yes, I agree because The most cryptographic systems are generally vulnerable to quantum computerization, including traditional bank systems. However, the quantum computers do not exist and at least will not be there recently. At the time of quantum computerization can be a serious threat to Bitcoin, the protocol can be increased to the stage of post-quantum algorithm. Because it is  importance of this update, it can be expected that this will be an important review for developers and adopted by all Bitcoin users.

Quantum computers doesn't exist into public areas and it will be banned if there are people who tryna make it underground, it is not just a threat to cryptocurrency but it will also be a threat to cyber agencies,  so - quantum computers are used by highly secured and private organization. i.e nasa.

I can't help but laughing out loud in my mind for your comment mate. haha

Before the taught of quantum computers, bitcoin and all other crypto currencies are encrypted and transactions cannot not be traced. If quantum computers will be a treat to bitcoin and crypto currencies, it then means it will be a treat to the entire internet and everything connected to it. And if such a machine is created, it can't be like the PCs that everyone can get or buy at anytime, it will have to be restricted and put in control by the government, monitoring everything that is been done with it, otherwise things unspeakable will be done with it.

Just read the Bitcoin.org's FAQ. You will not ask this question ever again.

Your statement is true and probably will never try to meddle with bitcoin's security and extracting private keys. They will surely make use of quantum computers on more specific data researching about science and breakthrough some of the mysteries on galaxy like discovering another habitable planet. Even if Quantum computer will be up on the masses it'll surely cost a huge or worth millions and only a government approved agency will have it. But till now we still don't know if this will happen there's still alot of doubt about this thing but we can't leave it out freely.

I completely missed the link to the "Quantum Attacks on Bitcoin" whitepaper, thanks for sharing. The 10-year-estimate provided by Brennen et al pretty much coincides with Intel's own estimate "five to seven years before the industry gets to tackling engineering-scale problems" [1], assuming that it will take another couple years to reach commercial viability after that.

[1] https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-advances-quantum-neuromorphic-computing-research/

Not really off topic, because it underlines the fact that quantum is as you say, very much still in the realm of theory with very little implementation, even under laboratory conditions.

And here's another editorial that further explains Brennen's work (which I shared above) and stresses what I believe: that the threat is real, but has been far overplayed, and that current blockchain tech and iterations have a ten-year head start to improve. And improve they will.

A quote about Bitcoin: "it struck me how precise and intense is the brain trust behind this technology"

Also quantum teleportation would... you know... kill you.

Unless you're a die-hard philosophical materialist that assumes that quantum teleportation transmits information perfectly and assume that the positions of your molecules in spacetime have nothing to do with your being and are pretty sure that a clone of yourself with a perfect copy of your mind would be you as well. That is unless you alternatively assume that the I, ie. the self, is merely a mental construct anyway in which case knock yourself out! (whatever "you" and "yourself" would mean in that case)

But yes, it'd totally kill you.

(sorry for off-topic)


That being said, remember that the future applications of quantum computing is still for the most part speculative; let alone practical applications of quantum physics beyond that.

Non-sequitur. (intended in a friendly, not condescending tone)


The physical body is not just composed of local information.
It is also interwined with gravity which is a macro information phenomenon:
https://steemit.com/science/@anonymint/the-golden-knowledge-age-is-rising

The technology of quantum computing is quantum entanglement, the same technology that has been used to teleport matter.  So if you can solve quantum computing and make it practical you can also make teleportation practical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

And while some may argue quantum teleportation only transmits information, well if you have the exact state information of every atom in your body transmitted into a bank vault you can be recreated there, then recreated back outside the safe with the loot.

So ya I think it is a very similar technology.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608252/first-object-teleported-from-earth-to-orbit/

Isn't that what everyone (including @gmaxwell as he admitted) thought about the likelihood of someone solving the Byzantine Generals Problem in that way Bitcoin did.

Curious. Do you have any analysis to share or is that just your personal opinion? Just asking.

It is about as big of a risk as people teleporting into bank safes to rob them 

I don't trust academia's work in general when it comes to Bitcoin, they lack a lot of context which they refuse to understand, or add their own which they force to fit in despite obviously irrelevancy.

I agree we shouldn't underestimate the will of the state here, but I'm still confident that it no longer has the might to achieve that sort of success with an intervention, at least, not permanently. The state can always attempt to prove this wrong, however, especially when faced with its own survival.


Never mind about what I thought then, just my take on someone trying to draw someone else into an argument on who's who and who's reading this... you don't need to prove anything to anyone trying to draw you into that.

For another slant...
and I don't understand how any slant which doesn't attack other members of this forum can be considering trolling...
a free exchange of ideas is not trolling.

That paper makes projections about the timing and quantity of qubits that will be available in the world based on what is currently known by the pawns in public academia.
We must look instead to the queens and kings on the chessboard.

The Manhatten Project exemplified that when national security is at stake, governments can mount intensive capital resources to accelerate and focus development of a key technology.
When Bitcoin is the international reserve currency with a $500 trillion marketcap 20 years from now, there will be a huge payoff for the Zionists if they can complete their destiny as preordained in Revelation where all wealth/control will become concentrated on the hill in Jerusalem.
Presumably they will make the necessary investments.
They will already control all ASIC mining because they control the very high capex fabs.

The Chinese recently made an advance in quantum communication encryption insuring that a man-in-the-middle must destroy the information when attempting to read it:

https://www.insidescience.org/news/china-leader-quantum-communications

I'm not implying that the sober assessment isn't worthy. I'm just noting that it shouldn't be taken as 100% certain gospel.

I do not think we should be complacent about trying to eliminate the threat from quantum computing.

Such effort must be open source and it must be widely supported, otherwise those who are successfully working towards such might conveniently die in "accidents".

However, in the past @anonymint thought quantum computer would never likely be any faster on Grover’s algorithm than classical computers with parallel memory tables where he cited a paper by Daniel Berstein, but perhaps that is only until you meet the state.

I guess we must be not worried about that it will be happen in our lives =) And cryptographic algorithms can be also updated till that moment

Yes, Quantum computing is a threat to bitcoin. Quantum computers are so powerful and really fast and we shouldn't underrate it.
However a crucial feature of Bitcoin is its security. The features Bitcoin uses to secure itself can be solved by a quantum computer.
And Bitcoin is working around this to put everything in place in the future to come.

Anonymity isn't really the killer app of permissionless, trustless ledgers.
They generally disrupt top-down control, gate-keepers, and rent-seeking parasites in many ways.

The page of the Iota whitepaper which @anonymint cited explains that Iota mitigated the vulnerability in their (flawed) DAG design by making the proof-of-work difficulty very low.
But such a low difficulty in a blockchain consensus system would make the block period so fast relative to the network synchrony that
the orphan rate would skyrocket and the chain would no longer converge on a longest chain and/or attacking it would become much easier.

Yet the principle Iota employed could perhaps be applied to a different design that employed some sort of DAG that is not flawed. For example, @anonymint has been researching such designs.

Possibly some non-proof-of-work consensus system could be found that doesn't suffer from the nothing-at-stake vulnerability but that seems unlikely.

If I am not mistaken, perhaps the EquiHash in Zcash had some quantum computing resistance,
but it seemed to have some other flaws, but the details are not fresh in mind at the moment.

I presume that mathematically it must be possible to design a proof-of-work system which is quantum computing resistant. But haven't delved into it.

Mircea Popescu is working on a proof-of-work which is ASIC-resistant but don't know if it would be quantum computing resistant.
My concern is it may introduce a DoS vulnerability because the validator doesn't have a deterministic bound on computation.

Probably a matter of the way one thinks. This thought came to my mind as well that the speed these computers will be possessing, can boost almost n times the mining speed as well as confirmation speeds to such levels where even these ASICs would fail. If bitcoin is so vulnerable to quantum computing (and as many of us think that this vulnerability has been stocked in intentionally), what could be the best option to stop such attacks which will have the power end up an era started to promote anonymity? Can official institutions commit such (baseless crimes) just to eat everything from everyone? But then, there comes a question of trust. Who will trade any of these things? There will just be a single dump, and then - THE END?!

You'll excuse the intrusion into the semi-troll slant of the current conversation, but here's something just published that backs an earlier paper refuting the threat of quantum computing to Bitcoin: https://www.aier.org/article/threat-bitcoin-quantum-computing

The paper referenced: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10377.pdf

I personally believe that it is a threat, but probably 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. By the time QC catches up, Bitcoin will have inevitably improved. Somewhere, someone, is always working to improve it. I like this quote from the article: “If there is a known problem, there are people working on solutions, with tremendous professional awards accruing to the winner.”

I asked @anonymint in private Crypto.cat to respond one more time, and he was reticent because he said clearly @Ix has some vendetta and the discussion is turning nasty. He agreed to reply one more time for me for this thread, because of the technical errors that need to be corrected. Here follows verbatim the response he wrote to me in Crypto.cat...


No. The longest chain is measured by adding up the difficulty of all blocks. So even though the blocks will be produced more slowly by the attacker, the difficulty of the chain being replaced is constant and the difficulty per unit time of the attacker is not decreasing.


With all due respect, your ideas for fixes Will not work. If you'd like to discuss this with me, you may post comments on Steemit or Medium for me to answer.

---

Hashed addresses aren't vulnerable until they're spent. After a few unfortunate users are hacked as they attempt to spend, the 99.999% of the UTXO that remains hashed will remain hashed until a fix is in place as word spreads of the attacks.

Your response belies an understanding of what was already written in this thread. As was explained to @tromp when comparing the vulnerability to the signature scheme, the proof-of-work vulnerability doesn't have the protection of  the preimage security of a hash which protects the public addresses. Thus the proof-of-work vulnerability is much more severe than the possibility of breaking the security of the private keys. That is the point I made to @tromp at the start.



Your suggested attack is the proof-of-work vulnerability that I raised. Whether the attacker deploys it long-range or short-range, my point to @tromp remains valid, that the proof-of-work is more vulnerable than the private keys.

Also, developer checkpoints are centralization and are futile if the miners refuse to adhere to them. The community would have to fork to a different proof-of-work algorithm because all of their coins would be stolen by rewriting the entire chain. Such an event would likely crater the price. The attacker could for example short the token and/or have other ulterior (externalities) profit/control motives that are achieved with the attack.

Moreover, the attacker could rewrite the chain and steal/burn only the tokens he wants, leaving the vast majority of users unaffected. Since democracy is one vote per human torso, the attacker can steal tokens from for example the Bitcoin $billionaires (that have minimal interleaving with other users´ UTXO from the time they were mined at coinbase or burn those portions of the targeted victims that intervealed) and leave the masses intact so the attacker(s) have political support for their takeover. Bitcoin transactions don’t reference the block hash where they were confirmed, so that makes this variant of a proof-of-work attack plausible.



Look in the mirror to see who has been trying to drag the discussion into the gutter. First by your gross misapplication of Occam’s Razor wherein you argued that the more complex assumptions are the simpler ones, and now by making an incorrect technical argument. And then you have the audacity of injecting offtopic ad hominem inspite of your numerous errors and myopia about about how attacks can interact with externalities (and so for the 3rd time this is linked for you):

https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/the-caveat-though-is-that-when-the-attacker-can-fork-the-vested-interests-of-some-of-the-users-9340dd037a61

As for objectivity, I can only presume based on your statement quoted below that apparently you're still angry at me for discussions with you about your Decrits in 2013.


Is that vindictive behavior indicative of a civil and mature way to conduct a discussion? Since I started responding to posts in this thread via private chat with @Traxo, you've been trying to find a flaw in my technical argument with which you can nail me to an adhominem cross. Just stick to the points in the arguments without personalizing the argument.

It is not taking the thread offtopic to make points about Satoshi’s possible motives. Because motives are possibly relevant to how, why, and when such a quantum computing attack might be deployed.

Come on man. Please elevate your game to a civil discourse. If you want to prove something, then after 5 years finally launch your Decrits. Trying to ego battle me is the affliction of the incapable and isn't going to prove anything nor gain you anything.