Will a quantum computer like D-Wave's eventually destroy bitcoin?

Will a quantum computer like D-Wave's eventually destroy bitcoin?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover's_algorithm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)
youtube.com/watch?v=MgRSsH1yqRM
youtube.com/watch?v=3CMucDjJQ4E
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Eventually. Hopefully we are at singularity by 2030.

>Quantum Computing in charge of computing hashes
Explain.

I really hate the mentality spread over the internet about quantum computing because it's as big of a meme as trying to throw in more cores and thinking your shit will run faster just for the sake of it having more of something.

Can you made a quantum algorithm for mining bitcoins?
Can you use the quantum prowess of that mystical black cube somehow?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover's_algorithm

Quadratic speedup

That algorithm is used for search in a database.
Still doesn't explain how the bitcoins are going to be mined.

>quantum computer like D-Wave
D-Wave isn't a quantum computer. A real quantum computer would be capable of attacking ECDSA, though, which would allow you to spend arbitrary coins.

Grover's algorithm is a quadratic speedup of any black box lookup (i.e. finding a preimage of an arbitrary function).

In other words, it halves the effective bit count of bitcoin's hashing functions, allowing you to generate arbitrary new blocks with only 2^128 time instead of 2^256. Of course, this is still pretty much impossible, especially considering that all quantum computers are likely going to be slower than classical computers at running classical algorithms.

But as mentioned, the SHA256 is not what you're worried about. What you're worried about here is quantum shor's algorithm trivializing ECDSA, which would allow you to take any unspent coin and spend it as if it was your own.

The requirement to be able to realize this in practice would be a quantum computer with something on the order of ~2000 fully entangled qubits, which is three orders of magnitude away from our current lab computers.

Also, to answer OP's question, the simplest answer is no.

Bitcoin is designed to be forwards-compatible with cryptography of the future. Before quantum computers become a real threat in practice, it can migrate to using post-quantum cryptography and larger hash sizes as a drop-in replacement for the current algorithms.

If anything, it will lower the efficiency by about an order of magnitude, though, since you will need 10x as much space to store a quantum-proof key using any currently known post-quanutm algorithm.

Will that destroy it? No, because in X year's time, an order of magnitude worth of storage will mean nothing. Simple as that.

Great post. This is accurate.

Do look out, a meet in the middle attack actually means birthday attacks for hashes get cube rooted instead of square rooted, you'd need a 384-bit hash or greater to be safe there.

Realistically there would be plenty of warning. There exist post-quantum signature algorithms of various kinds which could theoretically work with a Bitcoin-style distributed ledger, such as SPHINCS (a stateless Lamport-Merkle hash-based signature scheme) - whether it would have practical difficulties, well, that scheme is about 47KB per signature.

We need several years more research into good PQ algorithms before we get something actually suitable to replace elliptic curves in all contexts. Fortunately there's time.

It's nothing to worry about in the near term.

That's not a quantum computer.

>Do look out, a meet in the middle attack actually means birthday attacks for hashes get cube rooted instead of square rooted, you'd need a 384-bit hash or greater to be safe there.
Interesting, but that's also not really relevant for bitcoin either, is it? You don't need to find a hash collision to break bitcoin, you just need to find a hash within a given set - one suffices.

Although I suppose if you could find a hash *collision* that's within the acceptable value range, you would be able to do some pretty confusing things to the network by broadcasting two valid blocks with the same hash but different contents to two halves of the network.

>lab computers
Daily reminder that the NSA and whatever britbongs have had RSA-like encryption 30 fucking years before normalfag researchers discovered it. You think the NSA doesn't have a fully working quantum computer with thousands of qubits already?

>You think the NSA doesn't have a fully working quantum computer with thousands of qubits already?
Yes. The snowden documents indicated nothing of this nature, nor nothing in their ability to harvest data that would indicate them being capable of breaking Tor, GnuPG, etc.

>Daily reminder that the NSA and whatever britbongs have had RSA-like encryption 30 fucking years before normalfag researchers discovered it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)
>The idea of an asymmetric public-private key cryptosystem is attributed to Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman, who published the concept in 1976.
>Clifford Cocks, an English mathematician working for the UK intelligence agency GCHQ, described an equivalent system in an internal document in 1973.

You seem to have included an extra 0

bitcoin is allready kill.
The only reason its "popular" is because hekers wanted to make money off of bitcoin mining. As that dried up they looked for the next gimmick which spawned litecoin and every other coinmeme.
Fags in big cities wanted something new and bleeding edge to make them feel like they were the future city memes that they thought they were so they let you buy coffees with bitcoin.

Bitcoin is basically a fad that is about to pass.

>being this retarded

I'm not a bitcoin fanboy but implying that a decentralized currency isn't the future is downright pleb

the NSA can't even catch a sandnigger blogging about their sandnigging on a public facebook account let alone build a quantum computer leagues ahead of large internationally funded efforts

I still use bitcoin for many of my online payments, donations, etc.

As long as people like me continue to use it, it will continue to survive.

It isnt the future. Its going to crumble sooner or later.

Dont store your money in it, its about as stable as storing your money in the stock market.

>trusting a person that doesn't use apostrophes

>Dont store your money in it, its about as stable as storing your money in the stock market.
Why would I store my money in it? That seems stupid, given how much it fluctuates

I see bitcoin as an interchange platform. I buy bitcoin using my local exchange, send it, and the shop at the other end (e.g. backed by stripe) will immediately convert it back to their local currency.

Maybe if it stabilizies, it would be useful as a long-term currency, but at the present point in time, I use it mainly as a transactional medium.

careing abooot gramer on the intewebs anonymoose sights


I was bout to do the same thing, carry on.
youd be surprised how many people do stupid shit like that. There is also the problem of sketchy faggots making wallet sites like that fag that stole millions of bitcoins from the people that used his wallet site.

it's a meme. they don't even have a working prototype.

there's also no reason, due to law of physical conservation, why a 'quantum computer' should perform any faster than conventional methods.

>Bitcoin is basically a fad that is about to pass.
The actual value of Bitcoin as currency means nothing, much like the value of currency in the republic of congo means nothing, its just another currency. Its the blockchain technology is what is going to take over as a means of accounting, its the most secure form of money storage and money transfer.

its explained well in this video starting at 12min 44sec
youtube.com/watch?v=MgRSsH1yqRM

Can I install Gentoo on something like this?

Asking for a friend.

No. They're generally not capable of general computation.

I understand the concept of bitcoin aswell as the relation of the monies of different nations to eachother.
I just advise people to not make stupid decisions that could ruine (or make) their lives. Simply put, its in most peoples best interest to store their money in a first world counties currency than some hot shit "decentralized" meme. It would be better stored in USD or gold.

Exactly - and you could then iteratively shatter the network consensus.

Where did people even get the word "blockchain" from? I never used it. In smaller networks with at least some trust, it would be far more efficient to eschew the proof-of-work and trust some timestamp servers or mints.

>Where did people even get the word "blockchain" from?
If you want a very thorough explanation of how blockchain technology works then watch this video
youtube.com/watch?v=3CMucDjJQ4E

>missing his point spectacularly

no, that poster doesnt understand how blockchain technology ties into Bitcoin. blockchain technology is everything about crypto-currency, Bitcoin only being one of them, so an explanation of blockchain is in order

As long as bitcoin dies.

Fucking assholes inflating gpu prices.

>mining on a gpu

2012 called

It'll never be kill as long as I can use it to buy weed

They still do it.

They artificially drive up prices for pretend money. Its not even monopoly money (that exists and is tangible) but absolutely pretend, doesn't exist and isn't real at all money.

Its madness.

That poster said that bitcoin is a fad, not that blockchains are a fad

>what is the Nixon shock

All paper currency is fake.

So what. The paper is real and agreed upon. It has the same value that society has decided it is worth regardless of its backing.

Its still more than Bitcoin will ever be.

Yes, along with all other forms of encryption

everything you just attributed to paper currency is also true of bitcoin

No it's not.

You can't buy shit with bitcoin. Its code. Its editable.

holy shit I'm being baited

go kill yourself

>You can't buy shit with bitcoin.
I pay for my Cred Forums pass, my domain name and my VPN using bitcoin. I also make donations using bitcoins.

Bitcoin isn't going anywhere ,to the moon lads.