Mediocre trolling: 4/10
Who's the troll? The Washington Post? Did you even read it? You will be one of the few weeping when someone who finds BTC a threat and possesses one of these.
the Washington post, no i didn't read it
Topic: This is REALLY BAD news for Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 3983 times)
Who's the troll? The Washington Post? Did you even read it? You will be one of the few weeping when someone who finds BTC a threat and possesses one of these.
the Washington post, no i didn't read it
The NSA found a faster way to move bits around.
This article quotes an MIT professor saying the technology is likely 5 years away. Many companies are openly building these http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
>>In 2001, Shor's algorithm was demonstrated by a group at IBM, who factored 15 into 3 × 5, using an NMR implementation of a quantum computer with 7 qubits.[3] ... In 2012, the factorization of 15 was repeated.[7] Also in 2012, the factorization of 21 was achieved, setting the record for the largest number factored with a quantum computer.[8]
Pretty much yes. Integer factorization scales better for quantum computers, but quantum computers offer little or no improvement in the speed of other computations.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0201143v2.pdf
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
>>In 2001, Shor's algorithm was demonstrated by a group at IBM, who factored 15 into 3 × 5, using an NMR implementation of a quantum computer with 7 qubits.[3] ... In 2012, the factorization of 15 was repeated.[7] Also in 2012, the factorization of 21 was achieved, setting the record for the largest number factored with a quantum computer.[8]
Maybe this is a stupid question. But if some day the encryption bitcoin uses was cracked , couldn't the devlopers just switch to a different encryption ?
Or as years go on even if the current standards aren't cracked , would it be possible to switch to newer standards to always stay "ahead of the game" so to speak?
Sorry if it's a silly question, I don't know much about this area.
Or as years go on even if the current standards aren't cracked , would it be possible to switch to newer standards to always stay "ahead of the game" so to speak?
Sorry if it's a silly question, I don't know much about this area.
Pretty much yes. Integer factorization scales better for quantum computers, but quantum computers offer little or no improvement in the speed of other computations.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0201143v2.pdf
By the time they can do that, there will be quantum encryption too...
NSA don't need quantum to take down bitcoin.
The US can make it illegal for any merchants to accept cryptos, much cheaper than spending money on technology.
The US can make it illegal for any merchants to accept cryptos, much cheaper than spending money on technology.
Troll or stupid.
If you actually believed the NSA were not developing Quantum computing you are very naive.
The article linked above can be used to protect you right now without any changes to the protocol. But what most people do not mention when talking about quantum computers is that we have had public key cryptosystems that are quantum-safe for over 30 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEliece_cryptosystem
Released in 1978 and is safe from Shor's algorithm. Absolutely no reason why we can't use something similar to this instead of ECC once it's been studied more and proven safe.
If you actually believed the NSA were not developing Quantum computing you are very naive.
The article linked above can be used to protect you right now without any changes to the protocol. But what most people do not mention when talking about quantum computers is that we have had public key cryptosystems that are quantum-safe for over 30 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEliece_cryptosystem
Released in 1978 and is safe from Shor's algorithm. Absolutely no reason why we can't use something similar to this instead of ECC once it's been studied more and proven safe.
Abadon the ship! :-D
Bitcoin can deal with it. Time has proven it has capability to adjust. Single supercomputer cannot harm network.
Bitcoin can deal with it. Time has proven it has capability to adjust. Single supercomputer cannot harm network.
+difficulty
Maybe this is a stupid question. But if some day the encryption bitcoin uses was cracked , couldn't the devlopers just switch to a different encryption ?
Or as years go on even if the current standards aren't cracked , would it be possible to switch to newer standards to always stay "ahead of the game" so to speak?
Sorry if it's a silly question, I don't know much about this area.
Or as years go on even if the current standards aren't cracked , would it be possible to switch to newer standards to always stay "ahead of the game" so to speak?
Sorry if it's a silly question, I don't know much about this area.
Mediocre trolling: 4/10
Who's the troll? The Washington Post? Did you even read it? You will be one of the few weeping when someone who finds BTC a threat and possesses one of these.
Mediocre trolling: 4/10
Not sure if this has been posted but I'm out. Going to wait until the next pump and I'm diversifying into better investments. This is scary for Bitcoin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
Jump to: