Topic: Will the bitcoin arms-race end with ASICs? - page 2. (Read 6250 times)

Actually, I think quantum computers becoming viable will end the effectiveness of many crypto systems - including bitcoin.

..because with this, you would make many million times less bitcoins than with simple mining.
I can't reproduce the exact numbers nor have the thread available, but with comparing the mining difficulty with the 256 bit private key, you, well, get some pretty large numbers ;-)
In fact with such large numbers all that stuff is simply not imaginable. Like "more cpus needed than grains of sand on a beach" and the like.

I'm sure someone will produce real numbers here!

Ente

This makes no sense. You can generate the addresses on any GPU or asic you want, and chance that you generate any address that has ever been in the block-chain is close to 0.

List of addresses that have any BTC is even smaller, something around 150MB. If checking generated address against those addresses would have any chance of success bitcoin would be dead long time ago.

It's trivial to do. People have developed programs that just generate absolutely huge numbers of bitcoin addresses using your GPU.

Why don't you build a powerful network and just run these for a few months, checking each created address to see if it has any bitcoins in it, and let me know how many bitcoins you steal.

Crypto experts claim that these algorithms, like SHA256, don't just fail all of a sudden. They first show the signs of weaknesses as mathematicians find a new ways of attacking them. There is always big time gap between showing the weakness and first demonstrated practical exploit, and those exploits usually are applicable in special cases. I don't see why would change from SHA256 in, say, 10 years from now, with some much, much more secure algo undermine the confidence in the BTC. It would be natural evolution, and even if then would be SHS256 realistically exploitable, accumulated proof of work would be barrier to any attack. And the story will probably repeat in few decades after that, and so on.

No one can accurately predict the future.

The assumption that it ends with ASICs is based on several assumptions.
#1 Silicon will always be dominant.  I think that one day quantum computers will blow silicon away.  There may be other tech we have yet to consider that lays between here and there or after there.  Any or all of which would blow an asic away.  There could also be algorithmic short cuts that could be implemented in current silicon.
#2 The keysign algo is mathematically intractable.  

We've seen lately a lot of ingenious attacks against previously hardened crypto.  My guess is that the algo we use for key signing will eventually fall.  While we could always switch, the fact that the algo fell would undermine confidence in the currency and render it worthless.  

In fact if someone just took a large enough set of public keys and ran a brute force random attack against them on a large enough botnet, they could fairly easily show "control" of enough bitcoins to undermine the entire economy.  

There are ALOT of bitcoins tied to keys that have long since been lost, these haven't been moved at all in years.  I know I had a hardrive with some 1,500 bitcoins years ago that died but back then they might have been worth a total of $1.50

I would guess that the next mining innovation beyond what we see now, will be bots built to do ummm let's calling it private key mining.

This came up in a different thread, and I wanted to talk about it, but not polute that thread, so, here I ask:

Does anyone think there will be another round in the bitcoin mining arms-race after ASICs have saturated the market?

I can’t see it. I think after ASICs are done flooding the market the difficulty will be so high there will be no way to justify purchasing mining hardware. Only people who’ve already made the capital expense will be mining - and some of those will not recoup their expenses - at least not for a long time.

I think this will happen on the first generation of ASICs from the current vendors.

Anyone see it working out differently?