pull down to refresh
Here are all the posts about quantum computing since April 1 (with a few unrelated quantum posts weeded out):
- Kardashev scale Quantum Computing for Bitcoin Mining (#1468768)
- The Last Line of Defense: Can QSB Save Bitcoin from the Quantum Storm?(#1469226)
- Horizon Quantum To Acquire IonQ 256-Qubit Trapped-Ion System (#1469014)
- Quantum safe bitcoin transactions with no fork. (#1468187)
- Cryptographers place $5,000 bet whether quantum will matter (#1467927)
- pqc-precommitment-migration: Bitcoin script-path spending via existing tapscript (#1468696)
- Post-Quantum BIP-86 Recovery via zk-STARK Proof of BIP-32 Seed Knowledge (#1467592)
- Bitcoin: quantum attack on mining would require the energy of a star (#1467402)
- nvk Is Mostly Right. That's Exactly Why We Build BIP 360. (#1467215)
- Isogenies, SHRIMPS, payjoin, GSR - Bitcoin Optech Newsletter #399 Recap Podcast (#1467025)
- Even more people talking about quantum computers and Bitcoin today (#1466637)
- New Advances Bring the Era of Quantum Computers Closer Than Ever | QM (#1464586)
- Google Just Moved Q-Day to 2029. Here's What That Means for Your Bitcoin. (#1464532)
- Thread about the recent CalTech quantum computing paper (#1464330)
- Post Quantum Cryptography - Computerphile (#1464042)
- Does BIP 360 (quantum upgrade) also fix bitcoin's security budget? (#1463883)
- Factoring is not a good benchmark to track Q-day (#1464313)
- Quantum computing bombshells that are not April Fools - Scott Aaronson (#1463651)
- A 200-year-old light trick just transformed quantum encryption (#1463564)
- Is "Go write a BIP" bad advice? (#1463426)
I belive post quantum cryptography already exists. Quantum doesn't just threaten bitcoin, it threatens every single financial institution on the planet, so there has already been a fair amount of effort thrown into it. So, it's not a matter of developing the cryptography at this point, it's a matter of implementing it.
As far as my understanding goes. There would need to be a soft fork, and then your bitcoin would need to be transferred to a new wallet prior. In order to protect any bitcoin that isn't moved, you would require a hard fork.
I may be mistaken, but that's my understanding. A soft fork seems way more likely at this point.
The problem with bitcoin is different from the problems with other systems for the following reasons:
- Other systems are centralized and can be centrally updated quickly or stopped if a real threat appears. Bitcoin cannot do that.
- Bitcoin changes happen slow, so developments specifically for bitcoin should start as soon as possible.
- I may be wrong here, but as far as I know currently post-quantum encryption algorithms use keys that are larger then the current bitcoin keys. This may present a problem specifically for bitcoin, where block space is limited.
- When a soft fork is implemented there will be a long time for the users to transfer their money to quantum resistant addresses.
So I would love people to take this seriously. I don't understand cryptography, but people who do need to think specifically in the unique context of bitcoin. I hope good post quantum addresses will be implemented in bitcoin.
(BTW even a small probability that quantum computers can break the cryptography in the near future warrants an action. Being prepared for a possible threat that does not materialize is OK. The danger is enough to take action. You don't really know for sure whether quantum computers will be ready in two years, 10 years or 100 years.)
I absolutely agree that this should be taken seriously. That's why I'm asking when people think a fork needs to be implemented by. I'd prefer if the community was proactive about some of these issues.
I would like to see post quantum cryptography at least being discussed here. What post quantum crypto alogorythms can be theoretically implemented for starters. Which is a lomg long way from making an actual proposal.