6 ms·

Quantum Won't Replace Your Computer

18 points by jensenbox 1y ago

rvz 1y ago
Well quantum computing's only economically valuable use-case is cracking RSA and other weak quantum-vulnerable cryptography. But there is a $100B+ (and growing) bounty to crack satoshi's Bitcoin wallets. The higher the bounty grows, the more urgent it is to break Bitcoin to claim Satoshi's wallet. (Unless Bitcoin forks into a quantum-resistant hashing method).
- fnord77 1y ago
  won't Bitcoin become worthless the millisecond any wallet gets cracked?
  - hattmall 1y ago
    Not necessarily, the majority of Bitcoin trades, which are it's entire source of value, are never even executed in the block chain at all. Neither the block chain nor the exchanges could actually handle the volume of a significant percent of holders withdrawing in a short duration. Now I don't know what that percent is but it's likely significantly less than 20%. As long as there's unaudited exchanges minting so called stable coins at will. The entire crypto sphere is valuated fully devoid from any actual underlying fundamental. Cracking a wallet could be the catalyst for its undoing but it could also be something else or nothing at all.
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      Uh, no. The moment there is good reason to believe Bitcoin's on-chain accounts are vulnerable, there will be a run on the whole chain. Nobody will buy more Bitcoin, and Bitcoin holders will be competing with every other holder to sell what they have. Bitcoin's value will go to zero, quickly/instantly.
- bawolff 1y ago
  > (Unless Bitcoin forks into a quantum-resistant hashing method). Aren't the hash functions bitcoin uses already quantum resitant? > Well quantum computing's only economically valuable use-case is cracking RSA and other weak quantum-vulnerable cryptography. The exciting use case is simulating quantum systems for physics & chemistry research. Cracking RSA is mostly a meme use case since the moment it looks like someone is about to get one everyone immediately switches algorithms.
  - ameliaquining 1y ago
    The hash function used for proof-of-work is, but the signature schemes for authenticating transactions aren't. So you can't make a bunch of counterfeit bitcoins out of thin air, but you can steal other people's bitcoins, which isn't really better.
    - proto-n 1y ago
      Not exactly. You can't steal anything unless the person revealed the public key. Addresses are just hashes of public keys, therefore qc resistant. However, you can't ever reuse an address, as signing reveals the public key. Otoh, afaik either it wasn't like this in the satoshi era or satoshi revealed the public key. In any case, satoshi's wallets are crackable by qc.
      - ameliaquining 1y ago
        I'm curious, does this mean that, if all Bitcoin wallets had been programmed from the beginning to never reuse addresses, Bitcoin could have been implemented without any asymmetric cryptography?
- bigyabai 1y ago
  > there is a $100B+ (and growing) bounty to crack satoshi's Bitcoin wallets That's like saying there's a $100T+ bounty on robbing the IMF. Bitcoin is backed by nothing, if you pull out a Jenga block that big then the whole thing is tits up worthless. It will also (incidentally) make you the enemy of some particularly powerful people with connections to criminal networks.
bawolff 1y ago
Sometimes i feel like there are more people debunking the "quantum revolution" than people who actually believe it. Yes there are some charlatans trying to sell quantum bullshit, but for the most part this is debunking a myth that doesn't exist.
- gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
  Sometimes I feel that I should think of 98% of funded research as slop, and get on with life. But (boring) engineering research, most of math, and (some academic) CS publications seem much less sloppy, I'll give you that
  - 082349872349872 1y ago
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2843975_A_Partial_Order_on_Classical_and_Quantum_States https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2843975_A_Partial_O... is v interesting, but only goes to 7, so it lacks a 10.5.1?
    - gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
      Ah sorry chapter 10 of similar title from the book https://extras.springer.com/?query=978-3-642-12820-2 https://extras.springer.com/?query=978-3-642-12820-2 pp491 is the autobio (I'd thought for a moment it'd be more prudent to offer the proceeds from UK-based web-intrigue than Russian ;)
      - 082349872349872 1y ago
        Love the autobio. Noise and the differential reminds me of Hartmanis & Stearns, Algebraic Structure Theory of Sequential Machines (1966), in that the latter roughly studied how our knowledge of what state an automaton is in diffuses over repeated transitions.
        gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
timhigins 1y ago
good points, but partly ai generated?

18 points by jensenbox 1y ago

rvz 1y ago

Well quantum computing's only economically valuable use-case is cracking RSA and other weak quantum-vulnerable cryptography. But there is a $100B+ (and growing) bounty to crack satoshi's Bitcoin wallets. The higher the bounty grows, the more urgent it is to break Bitcoin to claim Satoshi's wallet. (Unless Bitcoin forks into a quantum-resistant hashing method).

fnord77 1y ago
won't Bitcoin become worthless the millisecond any wallet gets cracked?
- hattmall 1y ago
  Not necessarily, the majority of Bitcoin trades, which are it's entire source of value, are never even executed in the block chain at all. Neither the block chain nor the exchanges could actually handle the volume of a significant percent of holders withdrawing in a short duration. Now I don't know what that percent is but it's likely significantly less than 20%. As long as there's unaudited exchanges minting so called stable coins at will. The entire crypto sphere is valuated fully devoid from any actual underlying fundamental. Cracking a wallet could be the catalyst for its undoing but it could also be something else or nothing at all.
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    Uh, no. The moment there is good reason to believe Bitcoin's on-chain accounts are vulnerable, there will be a run on the whole chain. Nobody will buy more Bitcoin, and Bitcoin holders will be competing with every other holder to sell what they have. Bitcoin's value will go to zero, quickly/instantly.
bawolff 1y ago
> (Unless Bitcoin forks into a quantum-resistant hashing method). Aren't the hash functions bitcoin uses already quantum resitant? > Well quantum computing's only economically valuable use-case is cracking RSA and other weak quantum-vulnerable cryptography. The exciting use case is simulating quantum systems for physics & chemistry research. Cracking RSA is mostly a meme use case since the moment it looks like someone is about to get one everyone immediately switches algorithms.
- ameliaquining 1y ago
  The hash function used for proof-of-work is, but the signature schemes for authenticating transactions aren't. So you can't make a bunch of counterfeit bitcoins out of thin air, but you can steal other people's bitcoins, which isn't really better.
  - proto-n 1y ago
    Not exactly. You can't steal anything unless the person revealed the public key. Addresses are just hashes of public keys, therefore qc resistant. However, you can't ever reuse an address, as signing reveals the public key. Otoh, afaik either it wasn't like this in the satoshi era or satoshi revealed the public key. In any case, satoshi's wallets are crackable by qc.
    - ameliaquining 1y ago
      I'm curious, does this mean that, if all Bitcoin wallets had been programmed from the beginning to never reuse addresses, Bitcoin could have been implemented without any asymmetric cryptography?
bigyabai 1y ago
> there is a $100B+ (and growing) bounty to crack satoshi's Bitcoin wallets That's like saying there's a $100T+ bounty on robbing the IMF. Bitcoin is backed by nothing, if you pull out a Jenga block that big then the whole thing is tits up worthless. It will also (incidentally) make you the enemy of some particularly powerful people with connections to criminal networks.

bawolff 1y ago

Sometimes i feel like there are more people debunking the "quantum revolution" than people who actually believe it. Yes there are some charlatans trying to sell quantum bullshit, but for the most part this is debunking a myth that doesn't exist.

gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
Sometimes I feel that I should think of 98% of funded research as slop, and get on with life. But (boring) engineering research, most of math, and (some academic) CS publications seem much less sloppy, I'll give you that
- 082349872349872 1y ago
  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2843975_A_Partial_Order_on_Classical_and_Quantum_States https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2843975_A_Partial_O... is v interesting, but only goes to 7, so it lacks a 10.5.1?
  - gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
    Ah sorry chapter 10 of similar title from the book https://extras.springer.com/?query=978-3-642-12820-2 https://extras.springer.com/?query=978-3-642-12820-2 pp491 is the autobio (I'd thought for a moment it'd be more prudent to offer the proceeds from UK-based web-intrigue than Russian ;)
    - 082349872349872 1y ago
      Love the autobio. Noise and the differential reminds me of Hartmanis & Stearns, Algebraic Structure Theory of Sequential Machines (1966), in that the latter roughly studied how our knowledge of what state an automaton is in diffuses over repeated transitions.
      - gsf_emergency_2 1y ago

timhigins 1y ago

good points, but partly ai generated?