Saylor : Bitcoin quantum threat is a ploy by ‘yo-yo token’ sellers \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Saylor : Bitcoin quantum threat is a ploy by ‘yo-yo token’ sellers cointelegraph.com/news/strategy-saylor-downplays-quantum-threat-bitcoin

282 sats \ 22 comments \ @rootmachine 17h bitcoin

Bitcoin bull Michael Saylor has downplayed concerns over quantum computing’s impact on Bitcoin, calling it a marketing ploy to pump quantum-branded tokens.

Saylor added that it is 10,000 times more likely that someone would lose their Bitcoin to a phishing attack than to quantum computing.

view all related items

221 sats \ 8 replies \ @02c42fc294 15h

That's what we call a low-probability / high impact event: quantum computers are unlikely to become powerful enough to steal coins in the next couple of years, but if they do, almost all coins are at risk. Comparing that to a high probability / low impact (comparatively) Event like an individual users coins being stolen makes little sense. This is called fallacy of relative privation, and relies on the inability to correctly gauge the impact of low probability events.

164 sats \ 6 replies \ @freetx 15h

There are any number of low-probability / high-impact events....grid going down, large custodian hacked (ie. coinbase), nuclear war, severe bug being exploited...etc...

The difference between those and QC is that some of those are hundreds of times more likely to happen than QC ever achieving anything. Yet, QC gets a disproportionate amount of media airtime....(thankfully, I guess).

26 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 15h

large custodian hacked (ie. coinbase)

Happened less than a month ago. I propose to upgrade this particular event type to medium-probability/high-impact and further intensify work on non-custodial, non-KYC solutions.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @02c42fc294 14h

Still, it's different if one custodian gets popped, and people who (maybe unknowingly) accepted the custodian risk, or if the entire security basis of the entire Bitcoin ecosystem is broken. Coinbase isn't high impact, it's not the entire ecosystem.

81 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 14h

Coinbase isn't high impact, it's not the entire ecosystem.

2.2M coins being dumped on the market would crush price for a long long time. Probably almost all "crypto companies" would go bankrupt. Nearly all miners would go bankrupt....the knock on effects would be massive.

The biggest impact would be against the mentality of investors (all the ETFs except Fidelity use CB). Instantly losing 250B may push investment sentiment to "its just not worth it" mentality.

Such losses by general public would usher in a whole series of new draconian laws that may permanently impact banks ability to custody bitcoin and freeze bitcoin out of regulated economy.

Central banks would use it to say "told you so" and usher in CBDC's that had the "feature" that such hacks could be rolled back, frozen, etc.

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 12h

Probably almost all "crypto companies" would go bankrupt.

I'd gladly get me some cheap sats off everyone while 🍿

reply on another page

52 sats \ 0 replies \ @teemupleb 14h

Except that most ETF providers and Saylor use Coinbase Custody.

Popping that would be quite high impact.

26 sats \ 0 replies \ @02c42fc294 14h

Well, it is also a very human thing to obsess around these catastrophic events. See the fear of airplane crashes vs car crashes, one gets all the attention while the other is the actual killer.

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @rootmachine OP 15h

correct. as Saylor said is more probable to loose BTC by phishing than hacking.

50 sats \ 8 replies \ @optimism 15h

Here's the segment ¹ for reference:

Can't help but feel that the article overly focuses on hyperbole and less on the underlying message.The main takeaway I got from the segment is "if it becomes a real threat, upgrade the protocol", which is the one thing I don't hear anyone objecting to.

I archived it from https://xcancel.com/natbrunell/status/1931042172893098391 ↩

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @02c42fc294 14h

"... because it would affect their own encryption...", another fallacy: appeal to rationality. He's assuming that there aren't powerful entities that either don't grasp or just don't care about the fallout.

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 9h

Who are these powerful entities that will not understand it but yet have the ability to use it? Terrorist groups aren't developing it. States are not developing. Companies are developing it. They understand what they are working on and the fallout.

The real question is if quantum is actually going to ever happen. I'm still unsure.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 9h

Would you risk it all if the fix is a softfork with a new witness program?

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 8h

I don't know, you didn't answer my question.

61 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 8h

Oh I didn't understand that the question was meant for those of us that didn't make the statement. But I'll entertain it:

Who are these powerful entities that will not understand it but yet have the ability to use it?

I don't believe this. What I think is that there are powerful entities that play a long game, where short-term crises can be anticipated and even prevented, and long-term gains positioned accordingly. Also, no point in stealing coins that will go to 0, so you'd do one or a couple big-but-not-"patoshi" utxo(s) per week.

Bottom line, I don't think that trusting Google, IBM or Microsoft is a good solution to a threat. Also, these can be infiltrated / hacked.

view all 1 replies

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 13h

Yes. I think this is why it's good that there's some traction building up.

We're 3-5 breakthroughs away from danger and you cannot predict who is going to make them.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rootmachine OP 15h

good remark regarding the main focus.

79 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 13h

Quantum fud is an IQ test for people whos coin is secured by Gmail and Google Authenticator

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 8h

Indeed. We've been hearing about "quantum" for so long now. When you look into it the amount of energy and lack of any practical use case mean it is likely decades away if it ever even becomes a thing. Its like the computer science version of cold fusion. The stories on it are all from companies pumping their own bags and writing their own tools for measurement. People need to be more critical in their consumption of tech news and news in general. We are told how capitalism is the blame for everything all the time and yet the same people that tell us this just repeat crap corporations give them to say...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 6h

Ignoring the merits or hoax factor of quantum itself, the companies creating the computers already have access to untold amounts of coin just by nature of email and 2FA hosting, that's before even getting into OS backdoors, logged softkeyboards, password managers... blah blah blah

You can't be FUD'ing quantum chips made by google and microsoft when google and microsoft already have custody of a large part of the network.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 9h

Not to mention literally everything will be affected, not just bitcoin. It's interesting that Bitcoin gets so much attention on this topic when it's probably the technology that deserves the least.

Footnotes