Ok, so when the topic of quantum threats comes up, people usually say, well, we can do a soft fork to make it quantum resistant etc. Fair enough.
But after seeing the chaos of core v knotts, i wonder, how much chaos would ensue when. Nostr is like 80% tribal warfare at the moment.
Now you could say it should, in theory, be a less contentious issue, but I don't think i buy that at all, it will be quantum peados or something.
what do you guys think, does it give you any cause for concern?
@schmidty was kind enough to post the transcripts of the October 20th Bitcoin Core Dev meeting and this was among the topics discussed. link
there was also a quantum bitcoin summit back in july, which may be of interest: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8Qx0853DvlPqutRekO3feBCmn2iRkC1k
Oh man, I didn't know about these transcripts. Very cool!
Some can be very short notes, so it's more useful if you already understand a subject, and I also think that with the current "climate" it will be easy for people to make wrong assumptions based on these, but, as long as people can be civil it is useful.
based their track record so far it seems to me that the technical bitcoin community is good at sorting real problems from bs and coming to rough consensus on solutions to the challenges that arise and implementing those solutions with thoughtfulness, care, and the appropriate level of urgency. so I feel good about their/our ability to address potential quantum threats with effective solutions on a reasonable timeline.
"quantum computing" is just a buzzword to make you pay more for same crap. move on.
Great term! But I don't think we are quite doomed to quantum pedos. Taproot wasn't so long ago and there weren't any root like pedos involved.
It will just take a while and a lot of refinement to the proposals.
No, because quantum computing is not practical. As far as I am aware the largest number a quantum computer has ever factored using Shor's algorithm was 21.
Lot's of tech is impractical until, with R&D, it becomes practical
Generally agreed, but look at the progress of quantum computers:
In 2001 the number 15 was factored with Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer.
In 2012 Shor's algorithm was applied on a quantum computer to factor 21.
And now it is the year 2025 and we are still on 21.
In practical cryptography we use numbers that are about quattuorvigintillion times larger.
Sure, but breakthroughs are unpredictable by nature. And we can't even prove mathematically that our cryptography is secure against classical computers or a guy with a pen and some paper.
Satoshis coins moving would be bad for price but a great way for everyone to company together.
Probably best to start discussing now. Especially about the script type and the weight. I hear it's heavy AF!
The bigger problem is that it would take a full year for everyone to migrate to the new quantum resistant wallets at current block size limit, so even if there is just-in-time forced consensus on a solution, it's still going to be too late to avoid chaos.
We need to be more or less agreed on a uncontentious and well tested solution 10 years before a quantum breakthrough.
Thankfully there are lots of eye balls in this that are not those of Bitcoiners, so as long as most big breakthroughs are published and widely propagated it'll be well telegraphed.
Still, plenty of scope for everyone to accuse everyone else of being a psy-op agent.
When quantum hits, it won’t just be code commits and version numbers.
It’ll be politics.
It’ll be suspicion.
It’ll be accusations dressed up as memes:
“You’re just a quantum shill.”
“They’re the quantum pedos.”
We’ll find language sharp enough to cut. And then we’ll use it.
And under all the noise?
There’s the change itself.
Critical. Dangerous if done wrong.
No time for infighting… but we’ll probably do it anyway, because that’s what humans do...