/biz/ - Business & Finance

Quantum computer proof altcoins are gonna skyrocket by then.

>quantum computing goes live
>powered by Chainlink
God I can't fucking wait.

>>24146021
fucking kek

>>24145882
no they won't

Just increase the seed size to the point where you would need a ridicules amount of power to break it.

>>24145882
you can have a blockchain with a quantum resistant signature algorithm.
quantum computers can't do that much about hashes either.

Let's just appreciate the fact that a thread about quantum computing survived over 15 minutes without the haircomb fag spamming. Maybe he's really gone?

>>24145882
not this one

>>24146225
I hope so. I fucking hate that dude with a passion, 100% a stinky jeet.

Quantum > BoringDAO interoperability bridge when.

>>24146225
Quantum computing will uncover the haircomb hidden within the blockchain.

>>24145962
>looks at 2016-2017

>>24145882
>flying cars are gonna kill normal cars in the future ,arent they?

Unironically when will we have quantum computers for consumers?

>>24146399
You were born with one between your ears anon, it's time to start using it.

>>24146021
Link is quantum proof

>>24146399
2050 probably

>>24145882
The Rothschilds wont allow bitcoin in any of their nations so it's a mute point
What good is BTC with strangled use and limited application?

>>24145882
Google has come out and said it’s super computer could probably breaks bitcoins algorithm. I just think they’re posturing little faggits, because if they could they would’ve already tried. Day by bay blockchain become exponentially more difficult to break.

>>24145882
>Quantum Computers are gonna kill banking and the internet in the future ,arent they?

>>24146483
>muh rothschilds
they're big gay larping nerds that dress up in robes and deer antlers to summon a big dumb nerd that wants to kill God.

>>24146202
>quantum resistant algo
>powered by computers
how do you envision this to work anon?

>>24146483
BTC with strangled use and limited application is a mute point

>>24145882
If they could it would be one of the least important consequence.

>>24146486
Quantum computing is nonsense at the moment. It's simply not going to be cracking anything. If it ever does get figured out, though, anything relying on polynomial cryptography is fucked. Which yeah includes crypto but also includes BANKS and THE MILITARY. So it really depends on who gets control of it first. A nerd on the internet? Probably gonna go after BTC. An actual hacker on the internet? Banks. A government? Military comms and networks. Whoever gets hit first will sound the alarm and that'll be the ultimate sell signal.

>>24146601
what do you mean?
Not all cryptography methods can be broken by known quantum algorithms.
only certain methods, like discreet log based cryptography (EC, RSA), are threatened by quantum computers.
Other methods to perform DSA's already exist and can be adapted.

>>24146483
>mute point

>>24146225
you should read the haircomb whitepaper before you post stupid shit like this

>>24146778
Things powered by computers are susceptible to quantum computers that are what those computers are but way more effective
Quantum computers can't reverse-engineer algorithms but that isn't the danger

>>24146276
dont be a hick
claim haircomb
only 330 sat plus tx fee

best assymetrical bet since bitcoin itself

>>24146276

dont be a hick
claim haircomb
only 330 sat plus tx fee

best asymetrical bet since bitcoin itself

>>24146202
yeeeaah... but what about those private keys. easy bruteforceable with quantum computing, no?

MAY ALL BEINGS BE HAPPY

>>24146240
Delete this. The normies can't know

>>24146021
Kek

>>24146998
quantum computers aren't universally better than classical computers at computing everything. They are capable of computing the same things, but there won't be exponential speedup in every task from classical to quantum like there is with prime factorization.
>>24147112
yes, that's the problem with the current ECDSA. With a new DSA scheme that isn't necessarily the case.
I still wouldn't be easy to fork BTC to a system like this, since you'd need new keys, but the idea of a blockchain itself could still exist.

No they won’t. Think about it deeper

i know very little about quantum computing. when people say it enables exponential computation in polynomial time, i'm left with the impression that it's like a non-deterministic turing machine. is that about right?

>>24146426
Kek

>>24146161

>ridicules amount of power to break it

so a quantum computer

Algorand is literally based around this entire idea OP

>>24147395
sorta
I'm no expert either, just read up on it a little and audited a class a while back. But if I remember right it's not quite a non-deterministic turing machine, but it's something similar and it gets its own class (quantum turing machine, or something like that).

>>24146901
>>24147103
god fucking damn it, I summoned him. FUCK YOUR MOTHER BITCH DOG BASTERT

>>24147503

so what's the difference?

>>24145882
>doesn’t know eth is quantum resistant
Kek

>>24147458
how to clam ALGO hairdrop?

>>24147541
you can encode a lot more data with qubits than you can with regular bits due to superposition, and then you can process them a lot faster with entanglement

Idgaf this stupid shit has never made me money

>>24145882
Quantum computing is largely a meme with some extremely narrow use cases.

Closed Timelike Curve computing is a different story, but seems infeasible unless there's a great leap a few centuries from now.

>>24147541
Not 100% sure.
it really seems similar, but a quick wikipedia search suggested the difference lies in the fact that the device has no choice of outputs after the waveform collapses. So you get a probabilistic result along one execution branch that isn't always going to be what a real NTM would be able to compute.

>>24147753
>Quantum computing is largely a meme with some extremely narrow use cases.
didn't 'they' say the same about the internet back then?

>>24146998
>quantum computers that are what those computers are but way more effective
Learn a bit more about quantum computing anon.

>>24147685

what is the difference between a nondeterministic turing machine and a quantum computer, i mean.

>>24147754
>So you get a probabilistic result along one execution branch that isn't always going to be what a real NTM would be able to compute.

this seems worse than a regular computer.

>>24147896
>>24147919
you run your program 1000 times on the QC and then average the result to get the determinism. difference is the QC can run the program in minutes/hours whereas the CC will take billions of years

Can't believe corporate sperglords chuck money at the quantum computing meme.

sage

Bitcoin already has some built-in quantum resistance. If you only use Bitcoin addresses one time, which has always been the recommended practice, then your ECDSA public key is only ever revealed at the one time that you spend bitcoins sent to each address. A quantum computer would need to be able to break your key in the short time between when your transaction is first sent and when it gets into a block. It will likely be decades after a quantum computer first breaks a Bitcoin key before quantum computers become this fast.

All of the commonly-used public-key algorithms are broken by QC. Including RSA, DSA, DH, and all forms of elliptic-curve cryptography. Public-key crypto that is secure against QC does exist, however. Currently, Bitcoin experts tend to favor a cryptosystem based on Lamport signatures. Lamport signatures are very fast to compute, but they have two major downsides:

The signature would be quite large, at least several kB (40-170 times larger than now). This would be very bad for Bitcoin's overall scalability, since bandwidth is one of the main limiting factors to Bitcoin's scaling. Advances in scalability such as Segregated Witness (the signature is part of the witness) and Lightning will be helpful.
At the time that you create each keypair, you would need to set some finite maximum number of times that you can sign with this key. Signing more than this number of times would be insecure. Increasing the signing limit increases the size of each signature even more. Since you are only really supposed to use addresses once, this may not be a huge problem for Bitcoin.
There is also some ongoing academic research on creating quantum-safe public-key algorithms with many of the same properties as today's public-key algorithms, but this is very experimental. It is not known whether it will end up being possible.

A new public-key algorithm can be added to Bitcoin as a softfork. From the end-user perspective, this would appear as the creation of a new address type, and everyone would need to send their bitcoins to this new address type to achieve quantum security.

>>24146763
Underrated

>>24147849
There's not even proof of quantum supremacy yet. Reducing runtime isn't going to be possible in 99% of the algorithms you use every day.

However, quantum computing will make it possible to have new types of distributed systems because you can do actual copy protection without trusted hardware. It will also make consensus several orders of magnitude easier.
Look up quantum money and Aaronson quantum copy-protection.

>>24147994

what does "average the result" mean? if you can't capture the result along more than one path of deterministic computation then how does it speed up computation?

>>24146387
we have flying cars already desu

>>24147505
please friend
acts of bestiality are not required for haircomb claims
only 330 sats to randomy generated burn address

please do not commit illegal acts for haircombs