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

Bitcoin’s race to outrun the quantum computer

decrypt.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Bitcoin’s race to outrun the quantum computer

#81

Post by semi-extrinsic »

im3w1l wrote: post #65
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that QC is far from cracking any encryption today or in the near future; this > theoretically flawed, based on an interpretation of quantum mechanics needing "parallel worlds" is patently false. There is nothing in QC that would stop working under the good ole' Copenhagen interpretation. In fact, if there was even a theoretical possibility that a QC experiment would work only in some QM interpretations,…

Copenhagen postulates collapse, no? If collapses turn out to happen at problematic times or because of problematic conditions, it could potentially doom quantum computers. In contrast, many worlds says basically: There is no collapse. Ever. The fact that no one has found what triggers collapse yet is to me evidence that Copenhagen is false. Pilot wave theory on the other hand is, afaiu completely equivalent to many w…

> The fact that no one has found what triggers collapse yet is to me evidence that Copenhagen is false.

It' just the same as "no one has found what triggers a split between worlds, and why the physical reality we observe is following this particular one of the many worlds".

Re: Bitcoin’s race to outrun the quantum computer

#82

Post by sroussey »

rolltiide wrote: post #73
sroussey wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The community will just do ... This is the funny thing about decentralized services. They require centralized action. Not saying it is good or bad, but it is... different.

It requires community consensus thats the opposite of centralized Anyone can make a snapshot, assigning value to it is not centralized

I said centralized action. Community consensus sounds nicer, but simultaneous action is required.

I don’t imagine this is other settings... “I only do breaking changes on my api so let’s have everyone change their client at midnight”.

Imagine if we all changed implementations of SQL at once!

Actually, we changed the meaning of the $() function inside the devtools console across all browsers at the same time. That was fun. :)

Re: Bitcoin’s race to outrun the quantum computer

#83

Post by paggle »

mlyle wrote: post #64
beambot wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For historical precedence, see "Moore's Law" Talking to experts in the field, we're doubling the number of functional qbits (ie accounting for error correcting requirements) about every 12 months right now. Looks like current number is 16-qbits, where many algos get "really interesting" around 1000 qbits (and functional even before that). So 5-6 years until a potential total transformation in computing paradigms. Qua…

Exponents don't continue forever in the real world. It's anyone's guess to how far we go, but generally extrapolating a curve far off the current reading is a case of innumeracy.

There are some areas where 100x improvement is almost inevitable: self-driving cars, facial recognition, etc. You don’t need to be a genius to see it.

Re: Bitcoin’s race to outrun the quantum computer

#84

Post by mlyle »

paggle wrote: post #83
mlyle wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exponents don't continue forever in the real world. It's anyone's guess to how far we go, but generally extrapolating a curve far off the current reading is a case of innumeracy.

There are some areas where 100x improvement is almost inevitable: self-driving cars, facial recognition, etc. You don’t need to be a genius to see it.

?? Facial recognition is very good already; how would we define a 100x improvement? A 100x reduction in error rate? NIST benchmarked current implementations at a 0.2% error rate with massive databases--1 in 500-- you're saying that you're really confident we'll reach a 1 in 50,000 error rate?

More generally: nothing is inevitable, especially when we're talking about orders of magnitude. Maybe it happens as quickly as we'd hope, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it doesn't even happen in the near to intermediate future at all. That goes for self-driving cars, quantum computers, general artificial intelligence, or whatever.

Moore's law was inevitable, until it wasn't.

Re: Bitcoin’s race to outrun the quantum computer

#85

Post by The_rationalist »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #59
The_rationalist wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which seems probable, as we are progressing fast in the number of qubits we can keep together Probable? Ridiculous: ×there are still no hardware implementation of a single logic gate despite what? 40 years of research? ×stability of qubits are pathetic. ×no software stack (almost) ×Number of qubits are ridiculous and 40 years of research can't even make a consensus on how much qubits are needed for beating a CPU on…

While I agree that QC is far from cracking any encryption today or in the near future; this > theoretically flawed, based on an interpretation of quantum mechanics needing "parallel worlds" is patently false. There is nothing in QC that would stop working under the good ole' Copenhagen interpretation. In fact, if there was even a theoretical possibility that a QC experiment would work only in some QM interpretations,…

Well if Occam's razor is not enough, you must know that both many world interpretation of QM and hortodox view of QM are refuted. The one remaining is the statistical one that is: QM is a map not the territory, QM descriptions are description of optimal use of our knowledge (or lack of) on a system. Sufficient knowledge of the environment allow use of classical mechanics. Quantum paradoxes do not exists because e.g the phenomenon such as two simultaneous antithetic state (e.g a cat dead and alive) are just intermediate QM calculations results that have no reality but are useful for calculations. Sadly QM are invaded by BS artists and "philosophers" which prefer fun magic to serious rigorous truths. Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

Re: Bitcoin’s race to outrun the quantum computer

#86

Post by The_rationalist »

McTossOut wrote: post #79
The_rationalist wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to understand what you mean but I can't, could you rephrase / exemplify? "Basically that quantum interactions are more fundamental to the universe than more terse ones, stochastic randomness or presence/absence." What does more fundamental means? Presence, absence and randomness are included in the set of quantum interactions they are not of a different nature. " If a computing device (in a universe) is…

I'll reiterate that I was just hoping to share my intuition behind the subject but I'll try and point you in the right direction. I mean that the relationship between Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics is such that the matter described by Newtonian mechanics is composed of matter whose precise behavior is exclusively described by quantum mechanics, that is that underlying matter is fundamental to the macro beh…

Well thanks for the effort, that was interesting.

In general I have issues understanding many QM explanations as I disagree with all interpretations of QM except the statistical one. You might be interested to read this Nobel prize paper with test the limits of quantum mechanics and refute in a sound manner, common interpretations. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

Re: Bitcoin’s race to outrun the quantum computer

#87

Post by semi-extrinsic »

The_rationalist wrote: post #85
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that QC is far from cracking any encryption today or in the near future; this > theoretically flawed, based on an interpretation of quantum mechanics needing "parallel worlds" is patently false. There is nothing in QC that would stop working under the good ole' Copenhagen interpretation. In fact, if there was even a theoretical possibility that a QC experiment would work only in some QM interpretations,…

Well if Occam's razor is not enough, you must know that both many world interpretation of QM and hortodox view of QM are refuted. The one remaining is the statistical one that is: QM is a map not the territory, QM descriptions are description of optimal use of our knowledge (or lack of) on a system. Sufficient knowledge of the environment allow use of classical mechanics. Quantum paradoxes do not exists because e.g t…

It is a travesty to put forward such unfounded claims, and then point to as source a paper by the great Anthony Leggett on the use of condensed matter systems to probe the quantum measurement problem.

What you are claiming is merely the proposition of "hidden variables" aka "local realism", a theory which has been thoroughly rejected by experimental measurements [1,2,3].

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15759

[2] https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.115.250401

[3] https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.115.250402

Re: Bitcoin’s race to outrun the quantum computer

#88

Post by rolltiide »

sroussey wrote: post #82
rolltiide wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It requires community consensus thats the opposite of centralized Anyone can make a snapshot, assigning value to it is not centralized

I said centralized action. Community consensus sounds nicer, but simultaneous action is required. I don’t imagine this is other settings... “I only do breaking changes on my api so let’s have everyone change their client at midnight”. Imagine if we all changed implementations of SQL at once! Actually, we changed the meaning of the $() function inside the devtools console across all browsers at the same time. That was…

No thats not necessary.

People just add flags in their mining protocol that only trigger when a threshold is reached. The last Segwit changes needed a percent change of closer to 90% just to trigger the next change.

We are only assuming that consensus would be reached quickly given the scenario presented. It would be irresponsible to design it to need simultaneous action. People would have to considering to stop using the bitcoin network for X,000 blocks while consensus is being reached, and only until it is reached.

Re: Bitcoin’s race to outrun the quantum computer

#89

Post by beambot »

mlyle wrote: post #64
beambot wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For historical precedence, see "Moore's Law" Talking to experts in the field, we're doubling the number of functional qbits (ie accounting for error correcting requirements) about every 12 months right now. Looks like current number is 16-qbits, where many algos get "really interesting" around 1000 qbits (and functional even before that). So 5-6 years until a potential total transformation in computing paradigms. Qua…

Exponents don't continue forever in the real world. It's anyone's guess to how far we go, but generally extrapolating a curve far off the current reading is a case of innumeracy.

Obviously. However, Moore's Law held for 40+ years. We are at 16 qbits in quantum vs single silicon chips with 1.2Trillion transistors. Clearly some room for growth, especially given the $Billions in annual investment being poured into quantum.

Re: Bitcoin’s race to outrun the quantum computer

#90

Post by ridewinter »

zazagura wrote: post #18
ridewinter wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only truly safe encryption is quantum encryption. Any classical encryption algorithm should be breakable with quantum computers, even if we haven’t figured it out yet like with Shor’s.

Citation needed? Symmetric encryption algorithms like AES (with at least 256 bit key) are considered safe even against quantum computers, based on some reasonable math/qm assumptions.

All of that seems to only be “medium” secure in face of future quantum computing.

“It's been estimated that 6,681 qubits would be required to run use Grover's algorithm to break AES-256 bit encryption.”

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/14/quantum_encryption_...

Post reply on HN