Topic: Quantum computing is not really a Bitcoin problem. (Read 355 times)

Quantum computers are not as close to real life as you think.

What about other BTC, which were lost on early days, when HDD had been getting broken etc.?

Many developers had done it before to their bounty hunters by requiring them to send the private key inorder to claim or something. Bounty hunters comply as well, whatever the dev team says.


If they have the quantum computer, they probably attack satoshi's wallet the first chance they got. However it might be very difficult for them to do it since satoshi had never publicly done any transaction for the public key exposure.

Perhaps people are not yet fully aware of the power and capabilities of a quantum computer. We have not yet seen the operation of such a computer.
If we talk about Bitcoin, then this is not the worst problem of the coin, but the potential

And such a thought visits me, why do we think that the information about the quantum computer is correct? If they decided to tell us about it now, then this is no longer a secret. If we assume that organizations that hunt for other people's secrets are not indignant, then their progress has gone even further than we are informed about this. No one has canceled secrets in security issues at the state level. Rather, the opposite. The farther, the more "information itself" becomes a weapon, much more terrible than nuclear. Who knows, he is silent. Need some examples?

I think the unsolved problem of phishing is more significant than quantum computing. We ourselves give our private key, not suspecting that they are attacking us.

The number of bitcoins lost due to the loss of keys or the death of the key keeper is huge and is growing every year. The theft of our confidential information, passwords - is growing.
I get new confirmations of my position that new passwordless and keyless systems will be in demand.
Quantum attacks are already possible, and quantum robust algorithms have not yet been determined. In addition to symmetric systems. But no symmetric encryption system without asymmetric will work.
So far, this problem remains without a visible solution.

What will happen to the lost coins or coins without owners?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-as-shalecoin-5134441
https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/

Cryptography after the Aliens Land, Bruce Schneier, IEEE Security & Privacy, September/October 2018.
Read at least the beginning of the article, it was written by all recognized genius in cryptography! I had the honor of being in correspondence with this person; he allowed me to use his quotes. This is a formality, but a fact. The fact that modern cryptography has a lot of problems is not my thoughts. Think carefully about what is written in this article.
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2018/09/cryptography_after_t.html

-----------------------------
Those who have a quantum computer can hack you. And not necessarily brute force attack, as everyone writes about it. There is a mathematical apparatus known only to cryptanalysts, which reduces the time of hacking by a huge number of times, relative to brute force attacks. If you plan to defend yourself with quantum cryptography, then you need to have a quantum computer for encryption. Read which systems claim, see what kind of resource they need, see what size keys they need to work, and it will become clear to you that your equipment is not suitable for these tasks. I think the problem is much more serious than it seems if you delve into the realities of today. A quantum computer attacks you, and you plan to defend yourself with old iron. The forces are not equal!

The following problems are observed in modern cryptography:

1) The limited number of working schemes [1], for public-key cryptography;

2) “Lack of prospects” [2] due to the development of new types of attacks and efficient computational processes (quantum computing), which means the future of cryptography in its modern form is very vague.

3) Potential unreliability of the basis [3]. Within the framework of the theory of computational complexity, the connection between complexly computable problems and their analogues has already been proved. This means that if it is hacked, at least one modern cryptosystem, many others also will not stand;

4) Constant "inflation" of the size of data blocks and keys [4], due to the progress of mathematics and computing. So, if at the time of creating the RSA cryptosystem, the size of numbers in 512 bits was considered sufficient, now at least 4 Kbits is recommended. Cryptographers find new tricks all the time, so we tend to use keys longer than is strictly necessary. Much less, but true for symmetric encryption algorithms;

5) The ability to quickly search will break some of the modern encryption algorithms. A light factorization of large numbers will break the RSA cryptosystem with any key length [5];

6) In essence, modern cryptography relies on the mathematical quirk that some things are easier to do than to cancel.

“Perhaps the whole idea of cryptography is based on number theory [6], as modern public key systems are a temporary phenomenon that exists due to gaps in the computation model” - Bruce Schneier.

So what do we have?
A temporary phenomenon that we trust?
Is there a way to gradual evolution or do you need a “knight's move”?

And one more quotation, like a flashlight, highlights the high probability of a dead-end path for the development of modern cryptography, and again Bruce Schneier: “... Yes, I know that the distribution of quantum keys is a potential replacement for public-key cryptography. But let's be honest: does anyone even believe that a system that requires specialized communication equipment and cables will be used for anything other than niche applications? The future is mobile, constantly powered computing devices. All security systems for them will be only software [7]. "

Bruce Schneier:
This is a strange future. Perhaps the whole idea of cryptography on number theory, like modern public key systems, is a temporary phenomenon that exists due to gaps in the computational model. Now that the model has expanded to include quantum computing, we can be where we were in the late 1970s and early 1980s: symmetric cryptography, cryptography based on codes, Merkle's signatures. It will be funny and ironic.

AFAIK the bitcoin network can just fork to a quantum resistant algorithm if and when this event happens. There is no apocolypse that a lot of people are stressing about - that is mostly FUD on the part of the media.

And if this happens, BTC will probably one of your least worries given that everything else in your daily life will get disrupted as well.

Also, quantum computing on even a commercial scale let alone individual scale is still very far away atm.

Opinions on the dangers of quantum computing were divided. Let's see what experts, recognized cryptography geniuses think about this, and not ordinary bitcoin owners. Let's get started.

We will.

Satoshi Moving on to Other Things

Let's assume that you are right and they will be able to crack Bitcoin's encryption like it's nothing in a few decades. Why should it concern you? I'm in my 30s, even if it's 2 decades I'm going to be over 50. I could be dead by then! I'm also not going to hold forever. At some point I'm planning to start spending my Bitcoins so I can have some fun before I'm dead. I'm not collecting BTC for future generations.

Where one group of people thinks of ways to break security others are looking for ways to make it more secure. Maybe we'll have Bitcoin 2.0 by then?

To be honest, I don't see the logic behind it. Or perhaps it's sarcasm and I did not get it... I believe that we'll be fine because quantum computing will never become advanced enough. And I agree that if quantum computing succeeds, it will be a big problem not only for cryptos but for security as we know it. If someone has such power, it can get in the hands of some pissed-off workers of those companies, or it can even be used by those companies to attack privacy just like they love to do it these days. Hopefully, measures against quantum computing will come before quantum computing can do much damage. There are hopes for that since D. Chaum is already working on quantum-resistant crypto.

Most probably, yeah. But I highly have doubts on getting into it, Google admitted  that their sycamore processor has only 54 qubits, so threat for cryptography would be at less since for a computer to break cryptography's security it should be on a higher scale meaning from 100 up to thousands. Supercomputer for bitcoin mining won't be able to perform coz it can't afford the hashrate that the bitcoin network has, Supercomputer can possibly mine but with higher electricty consumption with the same rate for bitcoin mining rigs. That' is why it is not suitable for mining.

I also do not believe that quantum computers will be such a big problem for bitcoin, it will be able to evolve.

Potential negative implications of quantum computing wouldn't be seen just yet knowing that we're still on the 'baby steps' of this huge leap in terms of computing. If ever quantum computing becomes widespread, we still have the option to transfer over to a quantum-resistant algorithm and let things be. For the mean time, there's not much to worry about quantum computing for bitcoin's security. Brute-forcing private keys would still be a long way to go and an exhaustive process for anyone who tries to do so.

i knew it , all of these quantum computer issues shouldn't be main cryptocurrency concern.

media loves playing a fairy tale stories as they get pennies from it. it is not something like the end of bitcoin era, it is just the beginning instead. some crazy wild opinion talking about how quantum computer could mining millions bitcoin in a couple seconds.
that is completely madness.

a non-computer savvy will draw conclusion easily about this quantum computer could kill bitcoin , but the real tech savvy knew what quantum computer are really capable of.