Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin and quantum computing

nehanarula.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 147 posts

Re: Bitcoin and quantum computing

#111

Post by hananova »

nehan wrote: post #25
mmastrac wrote: post #12

The mostly likely quantum attack on Bitcoin will be a catastrophic transfer of large wallets to burn addresses along with a massive short position. No need to worry about washing stolen coins when you can just enjoy your "well timed" legal short position's windfall.

two things: 1) Short markets in Bitcoin don't have unlimited depth, and the centralized ones are KYC'd so there's some risk there 2) What if it doesn't tank the price? One thing people have suggested is just burning all the vulnerable coins[1]; it reduces supply so maybe the price will... go up? The point is there's uncertainty. [1] https://x.com/lostbutlucky/status/2040878873731080681

I don't see how 1 is any issue at all. Using a computer to make the intended bitcoin calculations much faster than anyone else possibly can is entirely within the rules of how bitcoin works.

It will also tank the price because by doing it, you have demonstrated you have complete control of bitcoin transfers, you can transfer bitcoins from anywhere to anywhere else at any time, and that there is no way to flag it as illegitimate because mathematically you're just providing the correct numbers.

Re: Bitcoin and quantum computing

#112

Post by hananova »

tshaddox wrote: post #88
dodobirdlord wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone happen to know if it is settled law in the United States that transferring bitcoins using a cracked key is a criminal act? It’s not immediately obvious to me that it would be covered by the CFAA.

I would be surprised if the U.S. legal system requires itself to list every possible mechanism by which someone might steal money.

Bitcoins aren't money.

Re: Bitcoin and quantum computing

#113

Post by mono442 »

flatline wrote: post #19
EthanHeilman wrote: post #2

"A CRQC is an existential threat to Bitcoin (you might believe this is very low-likehood). Your measurement of this threat should literally be: (A) How likely you think it is a CRQC appears by a given time, multiplied by (B) How likely it is you think Bitcoin will not successfully upgrade by that time." It would interesting to survey people about their answers. My off the cuff answer is: 2030: A=0.05, B=0.01 2035: A=…

I'm skeptical that B is fully possible. You can create a PQ fork of bitcoin but you cannot automatically bring vulnerable wallets along - and there are a lot of vulnerable wallets, especially from the early days. There's a catastrophe ahead for bitcoin with an apparent probability of 1.0. That's hard to account for in this scheme.

a hard fork could burn bitcoins which are vulnerable

Re: Bitcoin and quantum computing

#115

Post by kreetx »

j2kun wrote: post #42

> I personally care more about using Bitcoin than its price I suspect that the author is in a pretty drastic minority here.

Yup. I quite literally don't know anyone who is using Bitcoin directly to pay for everyday expenses, nor even for larger purchases. It always includes using an off-ramp and going through fiat.

Re: Bitcoin and quantum computing

#116

Post by xoa »

QuantumNomad_ wrote: post #103
xoa wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cryptocurrency gains are taxable in many (most?) countries. So? > Clearly the governments see cryptocurrency as something more than just random numbers without meaning. Not really? It's the realized gains that get taxed. That's a completely generic feature of the tax system, the government doesn't give a shit (and shouldn't) what people decide has value in any given transaction. The only thing they care about is wh…

> It's the realized gains that get taxed. That's a completely generic feature of the tax system, the government doesn't give a shit (and shouldn't) what people decide has value in any given transaction If I buy a vintage computer second hand for $1500 and then manage to sell it to someone else for $2000, I don’t owe taxes on that. But if I buy $1500 worth of bitcoin and then sell those bitcoins for $2000, I owe taxes…

>If I buy a vintage computer second hand for $1500 and then manage to sell it to someone else for $2000, I don’t owe taxes on that.

Uh, in the United States? Yeah, you absolutely do [0, 1]:

>"If you make a profit through these activities, it’s considered taxable income. You can use the Form 1099-K, along with other records, to determine how much tax you owe."

>"Remember that all income, no matter the amount, is taxable unless the law says otherwise – even if you don’t get a Form 1099-K."

>"If you made a profit or gain on the sale of a personal item, your profit is taxable. The profit is the difference between the amount you received for selling the item and the amount you originally paid for the item."

You may wish to review your understanding and confidence in your understanding of tax law.

----

0: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/are-you-making-extra-cash-selli...

1: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/what-to-do-with-form-1099-k

Re: Bitcoin and quantum computing

#117

Post by littlecranky67 »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #49
glerk wrote: post #20

One thing that is not addressed: say this quantum attack happens tomorrow and everyone agrees it was an attack, what would prevent the community (miners, node operators, and users) to hard fork the chain at a snapshot before the attack, patch the protocol, and call that Bitcoin? There would be loss of value of course, but it is not unrecoverable. It’s worth remembering that Ethereum forked for much less (not even a b…

> fork the chain at a snapshot before the attack, patch the protocol, and call that Bitcoin? It won't work. The only way to authenticate who ones what coins is with signatures. If the signature algorithm is broken, you can't tell who the original owner is to move the coins to a safe signature algorithm. You need to more to safer signature algorithm before the break, after the break it is game over. > It’s worth remem…

You have to consider the network-level forwarding, not only the crypto. The noderunners could role out a new version that uses whatever heuristics to identify transactions that are likely from an attacker. If transaction aren't forwarded, they don't end up in the mempool and thus not in the blockchain. And yes, then the attacker might try to manipulate those heuristics and filter etc. It would become a cat-and-mouse game, but as long as the "good guys" act faster than the attack adapts, there is a good chance a big number of coins can be secured. It is not an all-or-nothing game.

Re: Bitcoin and quantum computing

#118

Post by littlecranky67 »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #2

"A CRQC is an existential threat to Bitcoin (you might believe this is very low-likehood). Your measurement of this threat should literally be: (A) How likely you think it is a CRQC appears by a given time, multiplied by (B) How likely it is you think Bitcoin will not successfully upgrade by that time." It would interesting to survey people about their answers. My off the cuff answer is: 2030: A=0.05, B=0.01 2035: A=…

You should also consider that a CRQC needs not only to exist, but be used in a certain way. I can hardly see the first thing Google or IBM do upon their breakthrough, is stealing bitcoins. There is a reputation to have. And it is also unlikely some hacker can build a superior quantum computer in their backyard before some trillion dollar companies with a research budget can.

Re: Bitcoin and quantum computing

#119

Post by ciupicri »

glerk wrote: post #20

One thing that is not addressed: say this quantum attack happens tomorrow and everyone agrees it was an attack, what would prevent the community (miners, node operators, and users) to hard fork the chain at a snapshot before the attack, patch the protocol, and call that Bitcoin? There would be loss of value of course, but it is not unrecoverable. It’s worth remembering that Ethereum forked for much less (not even a b…

In my humble opinion (because I'm not a "crypto investor"), Ethereum lost all credibility with that fork. You can't trust a system/currency that changes the rules like that.

Re: Bitcoin and quantum computing

#120

Post by TrackerFF »

In practice, wouldn't it only be the dead wallets that would be affected? Granted, it is not a small number - IIRC, around 20% of all mined bitcoin are stored on these so-called dead wallets. With current prices that's a quarter trillion dollar worth BTC.
Post reply on HN