Topic: Quantum computer? So what! No worries...(?) (Read 5079 times)

-> person claims they understand quantum mechanics
-> doesn't understand basic kinematics

lmao

I would.

What makes you say that?

It would not surprise me if someday, some form of computing could break sha-256

I'm really excited about quantum computing. I think it's the next best thing besides Bitcoin. It's only a matter of time before everyone has a quantum chip in their computer.

Great thread. Lots of GREAT info lol 

http://pqcrypto.org/

Yes and I mine the 5400 coins which are left for each day....  

It is impossible one way or another. For normal person it isn't fact in favor of bitcoin in one way or another. It might just make it look more complicated then it actually is.

I mine 400 Bitcoins an hour with my quantum stellar twin turbo super computers with triple ASCIS functions..

Goodluck, Bitcoin.

Well it's like mining with a cpu. But I do believe even if that's the case if the computer is powerful enough maybe it'll work 

You guys have me confused now.

I though quantums are useless when it comes to sha-256...

Or did I not get it right?

Then there wouldn't be only one right? And no, at the most 12%

Surely a computer of that size and magnitude must be able to take over 51% of the total hash rate?...

Damn foxpup....I just appologized and edited my previous threads to tone them down....then I saw your latest post.  Guess I need to reply....



The thread title is Quantum Computers isn't it?  Didn't notice cryptography in the title.



Appears like you either copied and paste this from another site or you quickly read up on it.  But basically this is correct.  Your envelope example however is wrong.  Einstein used a similar analogy (Left and Right gloves) but was found to be wrong in later experiments with his example.  Here is a good 15 minute video explaining entanglement and proving Einstein was wrong with glove theory.
http://youtu.be/ZNedBrG9E90

If you did type this on your own then I would say you have a fairly decent knowledge.



Wrong...qubits can be in any unlimited number of states (they spin).  Your back to talking quantum entanglement or the "Observed state."  (Left or right).  Magnets have two states (N & S)


Any way this is getting old....

Night!

The entirety of it.

Don't you think that any discussion on the subject would be more meaningful if you knew even the slightest thing about it?

I guarantee you don't.

Entanglement is where two particles are known to have complimentary states, to preserve the symmetry, thus if a particle is observed to be in one state, the state of the other particle is immediately known, even if it cannot be observed, and there is no way for information about the first particle's state to be transmitted to the second particle. Spooky. This behaviour exists in classical physics, too: take a coin, slice it in half so that you have a head-half and a tail-half, put the coins in separate envelopes, and mail them to two different people. Whoever opens his envelope and discovers that he has the head-half instantly knows that the other person must have got the tail-half, even if the other person hasn't opened his envelope yet, and even if the envelopes were mailed in opposite directions at the speed of light, so there's no possible way that either party could know about the other envelope. But that's not as spooky.

Your ignorance manifests yet again. There are only 2 states of a qubit. It can exist in a superposition of both states, but when it is observed, it will be found to be in one state or the other, with no way to predict which (though the probability can be known).

Everyone knows that.

You learned about quantum physics from watching Star Trek, didn't you?

Singlebyte,

I admit I am not a expert on either topic.  I always try to remain humble
and aware that "I don't know what I don't know."   

I'm sure you have some good information. 

The reason I said you didn't sound like you know what you are talking about
was primarily the "it tries all solutions simultaneously" notion, which
As fox pup alluded to, sounds like hocus pocus.  The other reason
is that by it's very nature, (to my knowledge) quantum mechanics
operates on microscopic scales.  The notion of a computer
making use of quantum mechanics on a grand scale seems
paradoxical in theory (to me) and in practice we haven't seen progress.

All right, I'll jump back in.  What part do you believe that I do not understand about quantum physics?  I may not be versed in cryptography as much but I guarantee I know quantum mechanics fairly good.  I doubt either of you know what quantum entanglement is or why Einstein called it spooky action at a distance?  Do either of you know how quantum entanglement could be used in a quantum computer?  Today's quantum computers are only using 3 states of a qubit.  What if they unlock all states of the qubit spin?  Did either of you even know current quantum computers can only solve the most basic math?  

---removed hostile tone remarks----

As you are right jonald this thread has got of course and we should stop hijacking it.  I will let it die.  On one last note, it does sound like foxpup does know cryptography fairly well.


-Edit-
Replying to jonald thread below (Didn't want to hijack thread with additional posts)

Jonald, you make good points and thanks for replying.  Regarding how the basics of quantum computer work you may find this article below useful.  It is easy to understand and follow.  It tells how "parallelism allows a quantum computer to work on a million computations at once" (depending on how many qubits used) And it discusses Shor's algorithm.   I think you may enjoy it:

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer1.htm


Foxpup...Apology for getting in argument over something so stupid.  I have edited my earlier thread to tone down the discussion.

Cool.  What about Sha256 specifically?  I read about it and it's a long iterative process.  I thought the priv key was the hash of pub address or something... Thx in advance

In public-key cryptography, you have a public key and a private key, which are mathematically related. Specifically, they are related (in the simplest case) by the product of two prime numbers. This product is part of the public key, and the private key is calculated from the primes. Since the product of the primes is public, if you can factorise this product, you can calculate the private key. The security of public-key algorithms using this or similar methods is predicated on the assumption that doing so is Really Hard. Again, there are public-key algorithms that don't involve such methods, and these algorithms are not broken by faster methods of factorisation.

With all due respect singlebyte, foxpup sounds like he knows what he is talking about, and you definitely do not, at least on this topic.  Please stop the foolish arguments and let the people who want to learn (myself) do so from people with knowledge.