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

Quantum Won't Replace Your Computer

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Quantum Won't Replace Your Computer

#11

Post by ameliaquining »

bawolff wrote: post #4
rvz wrote: post #2

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).

> (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 someon…

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.

Re: Quantum Won't Replace Your Computer

#12

Post by bawolff »

gsf_emergency_2 wrote: post #7
bawolff wrote: post #5

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.

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

For quantum computing the real bullshit comes from private companies like D-wave and IBM.

Re: Quantum Won't Replace Your Computer

#13

Post by proto-n »

ameliaquining wrote: post #11
bawolff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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 someon…

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.

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.

Re: Quantum Won't Replace Your Computer

#14

Post by Nevermark »

hattmall wrote: post #9
fnord77 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

won't Bitcoin become worthless the millisecond any wallet gets cracked?

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 call…

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.

Re: Quantum Won't Replace Your Computer

#15

Post by ameliaquining »

proto-n wrote: post #13
ameliaquining wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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?

Re: Quantum Won't Replace Your Computer

#16

Post by gsf_emergency_2 »

082349872349872 wrote: post #10
gsf_emergency_2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2843975_A_Partial_O... is v interesting, but only goes to 7, so it lacks a 10.5.1?

Ah sorry

chapter 10 of similar title from the book 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 ;)

Re: Quantum Won't Replace Your Computer

#17

Post by gsf_emergency_2 »

bawolff wrote: post #12
gsf_emergency_2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For quantum computing the real bullshit comes from private companies like D-wave and IBM.

That's even more likely to be funded research :)

Sorry there should be an "ear-marked" somewhere

Re: Quantum Won't Replace Your Computer

#18

Post by 082349872349872 »

gsf_emergency_2 wrote: post #16
082349872349872 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2843975_A_Partial_O... is v interesting, but only goes to 7, so it lacks a 10.5.1?

Ah sorry chapter 10 of similar title from the book 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 ;)

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.

Re: Quantum Won't Replace Your Computer

#19

Post by gsf_emergency_2 »

082349872349872 wrote: post #18
gsf_emergency_2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah sorry chapter 10 of similar title from the book 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 ;)

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.

Queued
Post reply on HN