Topic: quantum computing (Read 258 times)

Quantum computing is a kind of technology above the horizon that could really make a lot of things possible. It uses quantum mechanics to store, perform, and manipulate the information. It makes the processing of information a lot easier and much faster than the technology we have now, using lesser energy than a normal computer. It was said that it has an ability to surpass their counterparts.

We’re still far from having a perfect quantum computing that could put the encryption at risk because it isn’t produced just yet. Although when the time comes it’s already achieved, it was said that the blockchains security and encryptions would be vulnerable. Since the information exchange made could be broken and cracked down, it would result to encryption security threat.

Cryto’s security for encryption and signatures is patterned on solving difficult math problems. These problems may be distinct to normal and classical computers, these are solvable using quantum computing. And crypto are based mostly on ECDSA scheme for transactions which is vulnerable to quantum computing. However, developers said that the algorithm can be improved and use a quantum-resistant scheme which should make the users as ease.

Afterall, these schemes are coded, can be improved, strengthen, and leveled up. Algorithms used in bitcoin can always be upgraded. They can use the SHA-256 if they have too because it was stated to be quantum-safe and can't be inverted.

Topics similar to this have been around for years and I wouldn't care until a quantum computer comes along.
It takes a lot of money to build a quantum computer. Supercomputers are currently a headache in countries because they consume so much energy and need a team to maintain. If I could create a quantum computer, I think they wouldn't decode Bitcoin or other currencies, but serve a larger purpose, and Bitcoin developers would have a way of solving the problem.

However, even if it takes attackers about eight hours, not ten minutes, to hack our wallets with cryptocurrency, this still does not solve much and the danger from quantum computers still remains.  It is somehow not very pleasant to realize that one day we will be able to hear that our wallets will begin to be hacked en masse.  True, first of all, our whales should worry, most likely, they will start with wallets with large amounts of cryptocurrency.
 In general, the problem remains and so far it has not been solved in any way.  As always, we first expect it to become completely real.

However, the problem with the possibility of the emergence of quantum computing that can quickly crack existing digital access codes, including our secret keys to cryptocurrency wallets, is still very real. Response protective measures, even if they appear and are publicly available, may be late for some time, and therefore many people can be very badly affected financially. This problem is very serious and should not be underestimated. When quantum computers arrive in the hands of attackers, it will be too late.

It's not just Google but many individual companies which are onto this project but unfortunately the government is not giving that much freedom to these companies to be able to execute a fool proof plan . Right now the quantum computer which is fully functional is too big to be even carried in by some normal person . You might have to ask for a truck to come.

The security issue with the keys will always be there but what I understand for sure is:

The government sites are more vulnerable as compared to Bitcoins or any other cryptocurrencies and therefore they would prevent any future attack for sure.
If one goes down everything will go down for sure.


Therefore I believe that the quantum computer will come with a lot of restrictions and therefore we don't have to worry much about it ; someway in the future we can also integrate the quantum computing in the Bitcoins and other mining machines this way it would not only be more secure but it would change the whole thing.

Again this has been discussed countless time and user https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/mk4-886521 has given a a good summation of some of the more recent discussions on Quantum Computing already in this thread.

My opinion is that Yes Quantum Computing(QC) does pose a threat to Bitcoin as it is today, but as QC technologies advance so will Bitcoin.  Here is a quote From Vitalik Buterin "For every cryptographic algorithm that quantum computers can break, we know that we have a replacement […] that quantum computers cannot break."

Here are some easily available links On Quantum Computing and how it relates to Bitcoin

1) https://cryptobriefing.com/bitcoin-survive-quantum-computers/
2) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin
3) https://decrypt.co/28560/quantum-computers-could-crack-bitcoins-encryption-by-2022
4) https://cointelegraph.com/explained/how-the-crypto-world-is-preparing-for-quantum-computing-explained

Currently an Interesting idea being debated about dealing with the QC issue are the implementation of Lamport Signatures.

Which very briefly is a method for constructing a digital signature from any cryptographically secure one-way function; usually a cryptographic hash function is used.

Here is the math behind how it works if you are interested


Keys

Let k be a positive integer and let P={0,1}k be the set of messages. Let f:Y→Z be a one-way function.

For 1≤i≤k and j∈{0,1} the signer chooses yi,j∈Y randomly and computes zi,j=f(yi,j).

The private key K consists of 2k values yi,j. The public key consists of the 2k values zi,j.

Signing a message

Let m=m1…mk∈{0,1}k be a message.

The signature of the message is sig(m1…mk)=(y1,m1,…,yk,mk)=(s1,…,sk).

Verifying a signature

The verifier validates a signature by checking that f(si)=zi,mi for all 1≤i≤k.

In order to forge a message someone would have to invert the one-way function f. This is assumed to be intractable for suitably sized inputs and outputs.

Source: https://cryptography.fandom.com/wiki/Lamport_signature
Source: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/lamport-one-time-signature-scheme/

I would also highly Implore you to go through both these links for a clearer understanding on Lamport signatures. Also if anyone else over here could kindly share their views on it it would be very helpful.

Also could anyone shed some insight on QC in relation to mining.( I guess this shouldn't be an issue assuming most miners are using QC for mining but couldn't this lead to massive centralization)

Thoughts?

Current scientific estimations predict that a quantum computer will take about 8 hours to derive a typical Bitcoin private key, which means that Bitcoin should be, in principle, resistant to quantum attacks (as long as you do not reuse addresses).

https://www2.deloitte.com/nl/nl/pages/innovatie/artikelen/quantum-computers-and-the-bitcoin-blockchain.html#:~:text=Current%20scientific%20estimations%20predict%20that,you%20do%20not%20reuse%20addresses).

If you would read this article I think Bitcoin would not be broken that easily by quantum computers at least for now, but if a QC could achieve a 10-minute mark to access a private key then bitcoin is doom, Well that is why cryptography was studying how a quantum computer works so they can patch some update on that matter but instead of destroying the algorithm of bitcoin why not used it to make bitcoin faster, I think that the introduction of quantum computers is make our lives more convenient and not just for hacking purpose.

If i may ask what is quantum computing?
And what are the functions of quantum computing?
Which axis of cryptoccurrency can we apply quantum computing.
We are here to comprehend what we don't know the basic idea.

bitcoin actually had many forks that improved it over the years.
we had a couple of hard forks that disabled some of the OP codes and added some new ones (OP_NOPs)
we had a backward incompatible hard fork in early days to solve a bug (value overflow).
we had another major soft fork similar to SegWit in early days that enabled a new script evaluation scheme known as BIP16 or you may know it as P2SH
we had 2 different soft forks enabling 2 new OP codes
and more...

They do exist. Dwave is making huge improvements in this aspect and Google is making good progress as well. It's just that they don't have sufficient qubits to be useful for cracking keys.
Most of the forks that were opposed seems to be because of certain personal agendas. A fork like that should be fairly straight forward; no one would oppose something that would harm Bitcoin's security.

Not disagreeing with what you said but it's not like BTC has undergone that many forks of its own volition...ie. a fork for the health and progress of its own network driven by its community/devs. So a fork would be a pretty momentous deal for the grandaddy of cryptos.

yes, that is how cryptography has been its entire lifetime. ever since it was perceived more than 2 thousand years ago (before computers), every cryptography method had an expiration date when they become obsolete and are replaced by newer ones that are stronger before the same thing happens to them too.
as for ECC and SHA256 (the two main cryptography used in bitcoin), i don't think they would become obsolete anytime soon but when they do, Bitcoin simply upgrades to newer and stronger algorithms.

Before I get into the weeds with links ITT, to be clear, if QC does reach a hypothetical power that would threaten private key security, a BTC fork seems to be the general consensus for the main possible fix.

There's isn't any quantum computers close to that, because quantum computing does not yet exist lol.  Quantum computing is a threat, hackers are a threat now, government regulation is a threat etc etc.  There's plenty of threats to bitcoin/cryptocurrency and it's ecosystem, but that doesn't mean they can't be easily neutralized. As someone else in here already stated, they will simply build in a defense, with quantum computers or once we know how they full operate, they will be able to build in protection.  The beauty of code, it can always be upgraded.  

I was supposed to post this link https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-dont-believe-quantum-computing-will-ever-threaten-bitcoin-5157696 but mk4 beat me to it. Anyway, that thread, which is only at least a year old, has a rich discussion on quantum computing and how it is possibly not a threat to Bitcoin.

But please be warned in advance that the discussion is highly technical and with long, albeit very information-rich, posts which left me more confused than before. But you will certainly gain a lot from it if you have dead serious questions and anxieties on quantum computers possibly a threat to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general.

Make no mistake, quantum computing is a threat towards anything secured by public-private keys. The amount of qubits required to break ECDSA is above a thousand and currently, there isn't any quantum computers that is close to that, without running it for longer periods of time and without errors.

It's not hard to design a new algorithm to secure the signatures but the harder part should be about securing the addresses with coins and were P2PK.

This has been discussed quite a bit already in the past.

Topic: I don't believe Quantum Computing will ever threaten Bitcoin https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-dont-believe-quantum-computing-will-ever-threaten-bitcoin-5157696
Topic: Bitcoin and quantum computing dangers https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-and-quantum-computing-dangers-5202485
Topic: Quantum computers and cryptocurrencies https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quantum-computers-and-cryptocurrencies-5259883
Topic: Did Satoshi think that quantum computers will exist? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/did-satoshi-think-that-quantum-computers-will-exist-5172573
Topic: What do you think about the threat of “quantum computing” for cryptography? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-do-you-think-about-the-threat-of-quantum-computing-for-cryptography-5226910

Quantum computer only posing a threat but not an issue as a quantum-resistant blockchain is the solution, and this is not hard for bitcoin developers to implement. We have nothing to worry about.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cointelegraph.com/explained/how-the-crypto-world-is-preparing-for-quantum-computing-explained/amp

quote author=o_e_l_e_o link=topic=5259883.msg54733230#msg54733230 date=1593892515]
No there isn't. Bitcoin could implement quantum resistant signatures via a soft fork, which would create a new address type just like the SegWit soft fork did. This new address would use quantum resistant signatures, and so everyone would simply create one or more of these new addresses and send their coins to them.
[/quote]

I did a search and it looks like the last time a QC topic was active was more than 3 years ago. That struck me as surprising because I though that QC could pose a threat to the security of BTC keys.

Google has been making exponential progress in the power of their QC machines. I believe I read an article saying that it is possible that within five years QC might be able to crack 128 bit encryption (the stuff bank websites  use). I'm not that well versed in the technology of QC. It's just been something I've kept up with in relation to its possible effect on BTC.

Is the consensus here that QC will not be able to crack private keys?