Do you think the advent of Quantum Computing will skyrocket the price of Bitcoin if it were to start solving for hashes?
pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 17 Jun 2023
I guess it depends on what it solves for. Hashes meaning mining happens faster? Difficulty adjust should come into play to slow it down. However, solving for private keys would tank the price, I’d think
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @channel_ninja 17 Jun 2023
Difficulty adjustment happens every 2016 blocks. So if they manage to solve blocks with QC they could snatch all those 2016 blocks before it kicks in. And then difficulty would be so high, that ASICS would never be able to find anything again and the QC would be the only one that finds blocks every 10 minutes.
That would be a hardcore 51% (in this case 100%) attack.
reply
21 sats \ 11 replies \ @DarthCoin 17 Jun 2023
QC is a scam. Too much hype for nothing.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @shibe 17 Jun 2023
I'm tired of hearing about QC. It's been like a decade and a quantum computer can't perform a single meaningfully useful computation yet. I remember hearing about how Quantum Computers successfully factored the number 15, only to find out that the system was designed knowing the answer before-hand. Not to mention scaling QCs to large number of qubits seems downright intractable:
reply
110 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 17 Jun 2023
I wouldn't call it a scam but definitely overhyped.
The problem is most people (myself included) aren't quantum computer scientists and don't understand what QCs will and will not be able to break in the future. In the common consciousness it might as well be magic, which is why it's good that people like you link reference research papers written by people who actually know what they're talking about.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @jk_14 17 Jun 2023
yet another confirmation of being super naive, lol
https://www.livescience.com/technology/computing/quantum-computers-could-overtake-classical-ones-within-2-years-ibm-benchmark-experiment-shows
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @2bithits 17 Jun 2023
They may outperform classical computers, but to break SHA256 is another thing altogether. The only known way is to brute force & that would need an unimaginable amount of time & energy
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 17 Jun 2023
the whole point is that if they can sustain enough that "hack" to reverse all blocks... meanwhile devs could change and adapt code in matter of minutes and all their efforts will be just in vain..
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @2bithits 17 Jun 2023
Devs could change in minutes but nodes & miners couldn't.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 17 Jun 2023
They will, if they want to protect themselves. Who is lazy, will pay the price but also will not be too much affected.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 17 Jun 2023
https://darthcoin.substack.com/p/bitcoin-myths-debunked#%C2%A7quantum-computers-would-break-the-security-of-bitcoin
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @jk_14 17 Jun 2023
"The risk of quantum computers also exist for financial institutions"
the QC risk which exists for Bitcoin (for ECDSA) = scam ?
:))
Y2Q day is broadly expected around 2030
https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/press-release/gsma-ibm-and-vodafone-establish-post-quantum-telco-network-taskforce/
they, don't like to waste money on nothing, btw
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 17 Jun 2023
I am waiting for you to break into my BTC wallet with your shity QC...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 17 Jun 2023
yet another confirmation that you are not only super naive, but also: super funny :)
(where have I written that I have any - could be even shity - quantum computer, lol)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nkmg1c_ventures 17 Jun 2023
Wouldn't advances in this be highly relevant to security and probably secret etc., kind of like Turing's Enigma program during WW2?
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @lunanto 17 Jun 2023
If it start solving hashes that would be a problem to the double spending feature of Bitcoin
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xIlmari 17 Jun 2023
No, it woudn't, because then miners would also start mining using QCs. Difficulty would skyrocket, ASICs would go to scrapyards and network would continue to be secure - you'd still need more compute power to make a 51% attack and double-spend.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @channel_ninja 17 Jun 2023
That would require all miners to buy a bunch of QCs. Maybe they won't be available that fast to everyone.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 17 Jun 2023
because I'm deeply in QC topic (and: because what Andreas Antonopoulos talked about QC is naive AF)
"Karagiannis points out that a key warning sign will arrive when a quantum computer reaches about 4,000 error-corrected qubits. “RSA 2048 will [then] be vulnerable to attack, which means all secure transmissions using the cipher will be reversible to plaintext"
https://www.informationweek.com/security-and-risk-strategy/is-it-time-to-start-worrying-about-quantum-computing-security-
versus
"the company says may help it produce quantum computers with more than 4,000 qubits by 2025."
https://spectrum.ieee.org/ibm-condor
versus
some chinese scientist inside says again: "2 years" (in the full article, unfortunately behind paywall now...)
https://cacm.acm.org/news/269628-underdog-technologies-gain-ground-in-quantum-computing-race/fulltext
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 17 Jun 2023
quantum SHA-256 mining won't be revolution due to quantum characteristic
but, it will break ECDSA first, lol - because quantum computers will be undefeated in factorization
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nymatix 17 Jun 2023
deleted by author
reply