pull down to refresh

Do you think the advent of Quantum Computing will skyrocket the price of Bitcoin if it were to start solving for hashes?
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
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
QC is a scam. Too much hype for nothing.
reply
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:
While a conventional computer with N bits at any given moment must be in one of its 2^N possible states, the state of a quantum computer with N qubits is described by the values of the 2^N quantum amplitudes, which are continuous parameters (ones that can take on any value, not just a 0 or a 1). This is the origin of the supposed power of the quantum computer, but it is also the reason for its great fragility and vulnerability.
How is information processed in such a machine? That's done by applying certain kinds of transformations—dubbed “quantum gates"—that change these parameters in a precise and controlled manner.
Experts estimate that the number of qubits needed for a useful quantum computer, one that could compete with your laptop in solving certain kinds of interesting problems, is between 1,000 and 100,000. So the number of continuous parameters describing the state of such a useful quantum computer at any given moment must be at least 21,000, which is to say about 10^300. That's a very big number indeed. How big? It is much, much greater than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe.
To repeat: A useful quantum computer needs to process a set of continuous parameters that is larger than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe.
reply
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
reply
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
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
Devs could change in minutes but nodes & miners couldn't.
reply
They will, if they want to protect themselves. Who is lazy, will pay the price but also will not be too much affected.
reply
reply
"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
they, don't like to waste money on nothing, btw
reply
I am waiting for you to break into my BTC wallet with your shity QC...
reply
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
Wouldn't advances in this be highly relevant to security and probably secret etc., kind of like Turing's Enigma program during WW2?
reply
If it start solving hashes that would be a problem to the double spending feature of Bitcoin
reply
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
That would require all miners to buy a bunch of QCs. Maybe they won't be available that fast to everyone.
reply
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
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
deleted by author
reply