Topic: Why is Bitcoin safe against a quantum computer? - page 2. (Read 7822 times)
it would have be a quantum asic to have the desired effects, not enough zeros on the processor speed will be added imo
If Qubits really can solve such problems and Christian is right maybe we can solve them on GPUs using Octonians.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
--------------------------------------------
Well guys. I see that most of you just hope that Bitcoin won't be broken and there is no REAL protection against an attack, described in the original post.
--------------------------------------------
If a malicious individual gets a hold of a single computer capable of that kind of speed, I think Bitcoin will be the least of our worries.
On a side note, I just found a bunch of interesting material that might answer all the OP's questions though I cannot say for sure since I have not read the material myself yet.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quantum-computers-and-bitcoin-133425
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Quantum_Computers.pdf
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9783540887010-c1.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-645102-p173864247&ei=3IdGUc-lI4muyQG554CIBA&usg=AFQjCNElz3JULn_Aa1H6NolkLNb9tbuX_g&sig2=0uHjvbW2jIBxRwMP7VIySg&bvm=bv.43828540,d.aWc
EDIT: I believe my third link has all answers.
So in summary: ESDSA would be broken and SHA256 would be fine.
ITT 
Wouldnt stronger cryptography fix that?
It will. But we should start doing ANYTHING except praying to Satoshi.
Wouldnt stronger cryptography fix that?
Basically it is classical geometry of the n-sphere and/or classical topology of the n-sphere kind of stuff, best represented using Clifford algebras...
The best explanation for 8 yo ever!
If Christian is right, then classical computing should be able to reproduce all the results so called "quantum computing" can achieve, although how much slower it would be to do it that way I don't know.
Furthermore, he even has an experiment one can do with macroscopic balls that, if he is right, should reproduce the "spooky" results on the macroscopic scale, thus demonstrating they are simply the topology of space, applicable at all scales, not some special weirdness down where things get small enough to introduce measurement uncertainties and such.
Unfortunately, as far as I have heard so far, no one has actually built the little plastic balls prescribed and run the actual experiment yet. Partly it seems everyone is so sure the universe is fundamentally spooky that no one can be arsed to actually check whether, in fact, it actually is.
Basically it is classical geometry of the n-sphere and/or classical topology of the n-sphere kind of stuff, best represented using Clifford algebras, but even those who purport to be familiar with Clifford algebras don't really seem to be particularly handy with them.
He presents it in other notations too but his detractors tend to keep shooting him down inventing weird glitches almost as oopsie as the one Bell started his theorem / inequalities paper with that Christian is attempting to elucidate.
-MarkM-
Furthermore, he even has an experiment one can do with macroscopic balls that, if he is right, should reproduce the "spooky" results on the macroscopic scale, thus demonstrating they are simply the topology of space, applicable at all scales, not some special weirdness down where things get small enough to introduce measurement uncertainties and such.
Unfortunately, as far as I have heard so far, no one has actually built the little plastic balls prescribed and run the actual experiment yet. Partly it seems everyone is so sure the universe is fundamentally spooky that no one can be arsed to actually check whether, in fact, it actually is.
Basically it is classical geometry of the n-sphere and/or classical topology of the n-sphere kind of stuff, best represented using Clifford algebras, but even those who purport to be familiar with Clifford algebras don't really seem to be particularly handy with them.
He presents it in other notations too but his detractors tend to keep shooting him down inventing weird glitches almost as oopsie as the one Bell started his theorem / inequalities paper with that Christian is attempting to elucidate.
-MarkM-
I do not really consider the purported capabilities of so called quantum computers really well "proven", actually, in the light of Harmony Christian's work.
Because if he is correct that the so called "spooky" stuff is simply the failure of a generation or few of physicists to account the topology of the units correctly in Bell's (and similar) inequalities, resulting in surprise when the 7-sphere topology bit them for forgetting about it / dismissing it as irrelevant, there might not actually be anything spooky going on at all, and the failure to factor anything larger than 15 might simply be because 15 is trivial enough it doesn't really actually require anything "spooky" to factor it.
-MarkM-
Because if he is correct that the so called "spooky" stuff is simply the failure of a generation or few of physicists to account the topology of the units correctly in Bell's (and similar) inequalities, resulting in surprise when the 7-sphere topology bit them for forgetting about it / dismissing it as irrelevant, there might not actually be anything spooky going on at all, and the failure to factor anything larger than 15 might simply be because 15 is trivial enough it doesn't really actually require anything "spooky" to factor it.
-MarkM-
Neither is every public private keypair in the world, by your logic. So don't do online banking. Or shop online. Or do credit card transactions.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Why does CIA need to destroy the banking system?
Shouldn't we be ready for the worst case scenario when the CIA controls a QC initially?
Neither is every public private keypair in the world, by your logic. So don't do online banking. Or shop online. Or do credit card transactions.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Why does CIA need to destroy the banking system?
OK, I'll play your game.
Why does CIA need to destroy the Bitcoin network?
Shouldn't we be ready for the worst case scenario when the CIA needs to destroy the Bitcoin network?
Neither is every public private keypair in the world, by your logic. So don't do online banking. Or shop online. Or do credit card transactions.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Why does CIA need to destroy the banking system?
The point is that if Bitcoin's algorithm can be broken then there will be more profitable targets than Bitcoin.
Shouldn't we be ready for the
I just read this thread up to this point. It is almost all nonsense. The capabilities of quantum computers have been describe well in other forum topics.
Bottom line: Quantum computers can't do anything, except this: 15 = 3 * 5;
Bottom line: Quantum computers can't do anything, except this: 15 = 3 * 5;
Shouldn't we be ready for the worst case scenario when a QC, that is able to break Bitcoin, appears in a few years?
--------------------------------------------
Well guys. I see that most of you just hope that Bitcoin won't be broken and there is no REAL protection against an attack, described in the original post.
--------------------------------------------
I just read this thread up to this point. It is almost all nonsense. The capabilities of quantum computes have been describe well in other forum topics.
Bottom line: Quantum computers can't do anything, except this: 15 = 3 * 5;
Bottom line: Quantum computers can't do anything, except this: 15 = 3 * 5;
What a bad quantum computer would that be.
Everyone knows the optimal way to get 15 is 15*1, not 3*5
I just read this thread up to this point. It is almost all nonsense. The capabilities of quantum computes have been describe well in other forum topics.
Bottom line: Quantum computers can't do anything, except this: 15 = 3 * 5;
Bottom line: Quantum computers can't do anything, except this: 15 = 3 * 5;
So it does computations...backwards
I just read this thread up to this point. It is almost all nonsense. The capabilities of quantum computers have been describe well in other forum topics.
Bottom line: Quantum computers can't do anything, except this: 15 = 3 * 5;
Bottom line: Quantum computers can't do anything, except this: 15 = 3 * 5;
Quantum computers are just a theoreticall concept
We can't rely on a piece of technology not being created to keep out coins safe. Imagine if bitcoin hadn't grown at this rate, $500 of ASIC could have done a 51%By the way, I love how your address has QR in it, and vice versa
Neither is every public private keypair in the world, by your logic. So don't do online banking. Or shop online. Or do credit card transactions.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Why does CIA need to destroy the banking system?
The point is that if Bitcoin's algorithm can be broken then there will be more profitable targets than Bitcoin.
Neither is every public private keypair in the world, by your logic. So don't do online banking. Or shop online. Or do credit card transactions.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Why does CIA need to destroy the banking system?
OK, I'll play your game.
Why does CIA need to destroy the Bitcoin network?
As we all know elliptic curve cryptography is vulnerable to a quantum computer. For a conventional computer difficulty of breaking 256-bit key equals 256/2=128 bits. For a quantum computer it's just sqrt(256)=16 bits.
Seems Bitcoin is NOT safe. Or am I wrong?
Seems Bitcoin is NOT safe. Or am I wrong?
Neither is every public private keypair in the world, by your logic. So don't do online banking. Or shop online. Or do credit card transactions.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
banks and credit cards are also backed up if you're robbed.
Neither is every public private keypair in the world, by your logic. So don't do online banking. Or shop online. Or do credit card transactions.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Bitcoin is not the only thing not safe from the concept.
Why does CIA need to destroy the banking system?
The spooky stuff - action at a distance and entanglement - might well simply be a very very basic failure to account for the topology of space, a kind of mis-use of units.
There seems to be a big tendency to claim a boolean is a boolean so that in essence the actual units get forgotten about, leading to massive surprise ("that is spooky!!!) when they (the units: the topology of the space) manifest themselves at the other end.
Hard to describe in easy familiar terms I guess, but maybe somewhat analogous to measuring volumetric booleans at one end, forgetting they are volumes (and thus actually speak volumes compared to scalar booleans), then being stupefied when measuring them at the other end rediscovers the fact they are, in fact, volumetric afterall.
Harmony Christian has been trying to explain this stuff for years, but physics forum inhabitants don't fancy it at all at all...
...If he is right, it seems one should be able to simulate quantum computers on classical computers by using octonians.
-MarkM-
There seems to be a big tendency to claim a boolean is a boolean so that in essence the actual units get forgotten about, leading to massive surprise ("that is spooky!!!) when they (the units: the topology of the space) manifest themselves at the other end.
Hard to describe in easy familiar terms I guess, but maybe somewhat analogous to measuring volumetric booleans at one end, forgetting they are volumes (and thus actually speak volumes compared to scalar booleans), then being stupefied when measuring them at the other end rediscovers the fact they are, in fact, volumetric afterall.
Harmony Christian has been trying to explain this stuff for years, but physics forum inhabitants don't fancy it at all at all...
...If he is right, it seems one should be able to simulate quantum computers on classical computers by using octonians.
-MarkM-
1) D-wave "box" is not (likely) real QC.
sorry, prooflink was lost (
Google it.
2) We have about 3..10 years before
real QC (with enough qubits) useful for "breaking" will be constructed.
If it WILL be constructed at all.
There are skeptics amongst scientists.
3) big percentage of known postquantum algos are patented.
4) Without working QC, very hard to say
: which postquantum algos are indeed QC-unbreakable.
sorry, prooflink was lost (
Google it.
2) We have about 3..10 years before
real QC (with enough qubits) useful for "breaking" will be constructed.
If it WILL be constructed at all.
There are skeptics amongst scientists.
3) big percentage of known postquantum algos are patented.
4) Without working QC, very hard to say
: which postquantum algos are indeed QC-unbreakable.
Jump to: