/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>25342055
All shitcoins go to zero, gold and silver become money again and silver Chads inherit the earth

>>25342073
>>25342055
RLC goes to 11k

>>25342055
well by that point the US gov would already be hacked and the NSA would be running around like the episode of spongebob when he forgot his own name.

>>25342055
>Quantum Computing
Doesn't and never will exist.

>>25342073
The things I would do for a silver dime rn, not gonna lie: disgusting

>>25342073
is... is Bitcoin a shitcoin in that regard ?

>>25342089
oh my. No wonder they gunnin for the great reset...

The blockchain will be snapshotted and hardcoded then the hash algorithm will simply change to one that is quantum-resistant. That's it. Easy.

Remember, too, that quantum computing will not appear suddenly on us like a camera flash. Instead, it'll grow slowly like a sunrise as research and development realizes it into existence. In this time, we'll have plenty of room to prepare. It's nothing to worry about.

>>25342096
I'm curious about you. Could you tell me a little about yourself, whatever you like, just be honest. How old are you? What's your job, what's your nationality, are you optimistic about the future, why are you on /biz/? stuff like that

If I told you that quantum computing is not only a valid theory, but already exists, what would it take for you to believe me?

>>25342116
if quantum computing took off, sha256 would be, in theory, easily rekt

>>25342272
I can think of a lot of things going before cryptocurrency.

>>25342295
really? if by this point BTC has reached millions of USD and you were one of the first people to crack SHA256, before there are even ramblings it had been compromised do you really think BTC wouldn't be one of the first things to die?

>>25342055
all the nukes would be set off and bye bye birdy

>>25342096
the NSA and google already built one
I'd be shocked if china didn't have one
don't forget that the internet and computing in general were invented by military intelligence

>>25342096
Here, if you reply to my post before, please read this, then tell me what you think:
https://aws.amazon.com/fr/blogs/aws/amazon-braket-get-started-with-quantum-computing/

>>25342272
>in theory
It's a certainty. The strength of the SHA2 algorithm is in the unsearchability of a 256 bit number. The idea that this number is so large, with so many possibilities, that even over a long period of time, a strong computer could never guess a number of that length.

Quantum computers can process one-dimensional numbers of, basically any length, easily. So this would need to turn into a 2-dimensional number.

>>25342318
He's right because TLS certificates and all encryption used by banks and intelligence agencies use encryption that is vulnerable to quantum computers. Everything would go. But it's nothing to fear, because quantum is developing so slowly, we have time to prepare and install new algorithms in the mean time. It's not urgent.

>>25342338
Many organizations have a quantum computer now. You can even rent one on AWS. Just remember it's in its infancy now. It's like when computers started out on punch cards. Now you hold iphones in your hand. But once upon a time, it was a tedious, slow, punch card system.

>>25342251
I had a friend like you talk to me about how they are going to be synthesizing and mining gold off of asteroids in the next 10-15 years. It's losers pure cope blaming everyone else for the reason why they are shit with money, just like a dumb hippy saying we should just take all the guns and throw them in a burn pit, you aren't optimistic, you are a fucking loser talking out your ass trying to convince people that you are morally better and more trustworthy than other people so you can scam and leech off them.

>>25342416
Thanks. I understand.

Also if you're interested, I am a multimillionaire. Not much a hippie, though.

Bitcoin 2, Craig vision

They can just freeze the blockchain and vote on a quantum resistant algorithm you fucktards.

>>25342680
whos they

>>25343181
So this is what I was saying here >>25342197
"They" are the bitcoin developers. And the acceptance is based on adoption. So the devs create a snapshot of the blockchain and change the algorithm, and then users download this new bitcoin client and use it.

OP all of this is well discussed, this conversation has been alive for years, and the best solution is already determined. Which is what I and this other poster have told you. If you want to know more, just google it. Take the burden of research onto your own shoulders and get the answers you want. It's what I did, it's what >>25342680 did. Just go out and learn. Be human, you know?

>>25342197
They need to upgrade all the wallets, otherwise old satoshi addresses left intact would be cracked.

>>25342055
Keep your poo in the loo rajeet

could someone ELI5 how quantum computing can fuck over crypto? is it even possible to explain it in 5 year old terms?

>>25343928
quantum computing computes results in a different way that is several times faster than normal computing
its still shit right now and its going to still be shit for a while but this anon might disagree >>25343764

>>25343982
>quantum computing computes results in a different way that is several times faster than normal computing
ok.. and even if it develops to its final form how exactly would that ruin crypto?

If quantum computing was developed to the point where it could crack the security of blockchains, the developer of that technology would hardly need to focus on crypto. With the hypothetical power you are proposing they could steal much larger sums of money and compromise physical systems on a global scale. Hacking bitcoin is thinking too small

>>25344040
the hashing process was made in a certain way due to bruteforcing, SHA256 is one of such hash encryption, and so an easier bruteforcing of said hash would make it so that they would get your passwords and own your crypto

>>25342055
DMG rules. That's what. DMM's mToken ecosystem will be the finite ecosystem.

>>25342251
Nationwide Debt Jubilee Hack

Oh. It's this faggot thread on /biz/ for the thousandth time.

The logical conclusion of this "thought experiment" is that any team intelligent enough to develop quantum computing will 1) have their identities known to the world 2) be well compensated enough that they won't be trying to pull off some halfwit heist and 3) be aiding efforts to combat the negative consequences of quantum computing.

You and everyone who begins these threads are fucking idiots who deserve to be poor.

>>25343982
>it computes faster
It's not so much that it's faster, because current processors are very fast. It's that it's different. It's a new dimension of computing.

Current computers use logic gates such as "AND" and "OR", with two inputs and one output. See pic related.

Quantum computers takes a new dimension. How we process within this dimension is not yet fully understood, however we have managed to create qubit processors which can do very trivial tasks, which you can compare to punch card computing as I said here >>25342404

>this anon might disagree
It's not a question of agreement. You are either right or wrong. I understand quantum computers and encryption very well, as it is my profession. If anyone misspeaks, I'll step in and help anons understand.

>>25345282
so what do you think about the process of having to use a current computer to compute into the quantum computer?

>>25342055
If, not when.

Also there is already Quantum Cryptography so the algorithms would need to change well before people get access to anything that could actually break the current private keys.

>>25343928
Quantum computing is effectively the Y2K bug of modern encryption. The sooner we respond to the theory behind QC in our systems today the better.

>>25343928
Normal computers use simple forms of logic to perform tasks. See pic related here >>25345282 Two inputs approach a logic gate, then produce one output.That is all that a normal computer is. What makes normal computers so powerful is the physical size we have managed to reduce the size of these transistors down to (a transistor is a small device that takes electricity, two inputs and one output, and performs a logic gate operation on it). Your iphone, for example, has millions of transistors in it. That is what allows it to make such colorful pictures, smooth operations, etc.

The GPU in your computer has billions, with a B. That allow you to have insane, almost lifelike graphics in your video games. Transistors now are so very small.

Before transistors could be so small, they were big. Too big. So computers were real basic and simple. Like old calculators. MS DOS. A computer with the power of a Nokia phone used to be the size of an entire room.

Before transistors even existed, there were vacuum tubes and punch cards. These had to be set up manually in order to perform mundane computer tasks. But the function was the same -- set up a series of logic gates and send electricity through it, in order to produce an answer. That is all a computer is.

Quantum computers use something different. Instead of using transistors, they use qubits, which is a new particle mankind has discovered in the past century. It is a strange thing because unlike most things in reality, it can exist, not exist, or *both* at the same time. The third option is what confuses everybody. But we have learned enough about qubits that we can finally harness them to process a new type of logic gate. One that has two inputs with two possibilities and an output.

For example, a transistor takes information as "ON" or "OFF" depending if electricity is on the wire. A qubit, instead, accepts "ON" "OFF" or "BOTH", depending on the state of the particle.

1/2

>>25345556

The addition of the "BOTH" condition lets us do new things. One of these new things is called "colliding legacy hashing algorithms", or in simple terms, breaking the encryption that secures many things today, including online banking and a part of the bitcoin protocol.

The hash algorithm bitcoin uses is called SHA256. This algorithm creates a 256 bit number of zeros and ones. (such as 1101010101...). It's a very long number. So long, in fact, that current computers cannot guess any one number perfectly.

For example, if I said "Guess the number in my mind, between one and a million". Do you think you'll get it on your first try? What about your second? How long would you have to guess until you got it right?

That is what computers do. That is what secures bitcoin. Making the number so long, that even all the computers in the world couldn't guess it, even if they tried to for millions of years. That is how long a 256-bit number is.

So how does quantum computing break this?

Well, sice quantum computers have this new state of logic called "BOTH", it adds a dimension to the processor. I'm going to skip some steps here and keep the answer short for you. But basically it makes vulnerable this type of encryption that relies so heavily on one-dimensional numbers. One-dimension means, a point on a line, such as "between one and a million".

Since the only numbers in the SHA256 hash are zeros and one, transistor computers can only process one hash at a time. But since quantum computers have "BOTH" in their logic, they can process both zero and one at the same time. So, back to my example....

If I told you to guess a number in my mind between one and a million, it would take you up to a million guesses before you discovered it. That is a transistor processor. But if you could somehow answer it by saying all the possible numbers at the exact same time, then you could discover the number in one single try. That is a quantum processor.

>>25342055
Quantum computing is only a threat if you reuse a receive address

>>25342055
What happens to bitcoin when nuclear fusion is developed and energy prices drop?

What about if cold fusion is discovered?

>>25345380
I'm really sticking to this example, because it's so true... it's like the old days when men used punch cards by hand, in order to program old computers, before you could just type out programs in assembly, then later C, then later on these easy high-level languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programming_in_the_punched_card_era

This is the most basic, fundamental level. So yes, I'm not sure what else to say on the matter, but you must currently use a transistor computer in order to program a quantum computer, because it's still in its early days.

>so what do you think about
I don't have any opinions. I'm just watching and studying.

>>25345572
This is not true.

>>25342073
XRP/XLM will thrive
Hardware secured
Blockchain secured

IYKYK

m80s, what are the implications of the fact that quantum computing will always be centralized ala datacenter?
until room-temp superconductors, advanced silicon photonics, or mass-produced quantum dots are invented, all quantum gates will have to be in highly controlled environments, sealed off and industrially cooled. doubt that the whole VLSI industry will be quick to develop these either.

>>25342055
only quantum resistant coins will survive. and bitcoin goes to the shitter ofc

>>25345584
Why would energy prices drop?
Energy companies will just get higher profit margins.

>>25342073
fpbp

>>25346442
i dont think thats true longterm.
But shorterm - that just means you'll have datacenters owning quantum computers. And then when the rest of the world (you and I) needs to use a quantum computer, they would rent it out to you for a fee. It's cloud computing, just like datacenters already work, usually with website hosting.

>>25346442
>quantum computing will always be centralized ala datacenter?
It will not. It'll follow a similar path of transistor processors. In the past, a computer with the power of an old nokia phone was the size of a huge room and costs a fortune to build. Now you have iphones with millions of transistors in it.

Quantum is currently in the "big room at nokia speed" phase. It'll be in your iphone in some decades.

>>25342055
BTC is the same algo used to secure the nukes so expect someone to hit the button. In reality all quantum computing will do is be able to create some also to build code from on a traditional computer, it's not what people think it is and no it won't break BTC algo.

>>25342251
it's hyperthtical, say sub zero states can be made stable enough to create a state in which code could be built from, and it won't be built on a Quantum computer thats not what they do. No one will ever have a quantum computer in your life time and it would be useless to most users even if they do come on by a 250 years overnight, all they do is create states that can be used in equations.

A freshly reminder that in the 1950's people believed they would have flying cars by the 60's

>>25346442
This

>>25346812
>all quantum computing will do is be able to create some
You mean mine bitcoins? Yes it could, but it can untangle all one-dimensional encryption. It could break ECDSA as well, which means someone could spend any bitcoins at will.

>no it won't break BTC algo.
Specifically, what people are worried about is breaking ECDSA, SHA-256, and RIPEMD-160. These are the three encryption algorithms that secure bitcoin. All three are vulnerable to quantum computing. These algorithms would simply need to be replaced by quantum-resistant alternatives.

I don't mean to split hairs, but there is no such thing as "BTC algorithm" it's more of a bitcoin protocol. The protocol uses encryption algorithms.

>>25346886
I'm a little more optimistic about the timeline. I hate to imagine that I won't live long enough to see the miracles that quantum computing can bring to humanity. We should see something in our lifetime. Maybe something compared to a primitive cell phone, and the benefit it has on mankind, but not something totally revolutionary like the iphone.

>all they do is create states that can be used in equations.
That's like saying all transistors do is make decisions :^) It's still too early to cast judgements in my opinion. I am very optimistic that something totally revolutionary will come from it.

Funds are safu

>>25345560
Not the anon you wrote this for but thanks for the effort posts bro, makes it worthwhile reading the drivel of this board. I know a bit of quantum information theory but could you go into detail about those parts you skipped out on?

>>25345560
What would you recommend to someone with a bit of web dev background that wants to learn quantum computing? this feels like it's going to be my generations dawn of computing and an important entrepreneurial path.

>>25342096
Fpbp

The entire science of quantum physics to begin with has just been speculated around theories with little to no fucking proof
>muh what the bleep do we know?
>muh spirituality and quantum metaphysics
It’s all a fucking larp and not even scientists fully understand but refuting it kinda disproves (((Einstein))) and other (((institutions))) it’s a fucking meme, a really bad one that got way out of hand in academia and now companies use it to flex on one another and hippies use it to talk about their stupid theories.

T.actual physicist

>>25347017
So how exactly does the entire protocol change? If the point is decentralization then there's no single authority that regulates what modifications are made to the protocol, right?

More importantly, how would changing the encryption standard be able to ensure continuity between the old private keys and the new? My understanding is that it would be similar to everyone in a normal ledger changing their names all at once. Would it be possible to ensure continuity by using the deprecated private keys as some sort of hashing string for the new keys?

>>25347247
Don't sweat over it. Even if (and that's a giant if) it takes off somehow, it will be in the form of a quantum coprocessor, instead of having quantum computer substituting our classical computers. Quantum computers aren't any faster than classical computers for most problems, and they also can't solve any problems that a classical computer can't.
Nevertheless, if you want a nice introduction to the theme presented by a qt mathematician, take a look at this https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLa6IE8XPP_gnot4uwqn7BeRJoZcaEsG1D

>>25347247
The book Quantum Physics for Dummies and bring yourself up to cutting edge. There isn't much we know as a species yet. It's all still so new. Then start programming in it. It's in its infancy, there isn't much distance between the physics aspect and computing. Just google it and follow slashdot for news. I'm new to it as well.

>>25347194
The part I skipped is precisely how a quantum computer can break SHA256. Part of the reason is because it's simply not developed yet. We know it's possible, but we haven't quite figured out how to do it.

It's like looking at a bird flying 150 years ago. You can think, wow, I know I can build a machine that does the same thing. Let's be humorous and call it "flying physics". But in this example, we don't know how to do it yet. It's just possible. We know it is.

I'm sorry, but I'm not able to ELI5 this part, as I am still learning and growing myself. But go ahead and help yourself and dive in, it's all out there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

This wikipedia page explains the part that I skipped. There are more than one way mankind has theorized how to do it. Compared to the example of the bird, it's like saying "there is more than one way we theorized how to create an airplane"

I hope that makes sense. The part I skipped was just the technical details of how exactly the encryption will be broken. All the important stuff, I said already. Which is understanding the difference between transistor processors using ON/OFF logic, and quantum processors using ON/OFF/BOTH logic.

>>25342055
afaik quantum computing can only calculate when you essentially program it with the answer in mind. i'll eat my words if they ever do anything useful with it outside of ridged AI.

>>25347529
Quantum computing does have a serious error correction problem to overcome, from what I've read. Computing the result is one thing, but reading it out is not as easy.

>>25345556
>>25345560
That's a lot of shit in only two posts, I'm guessing you don't know the first thing about either physics or computer science.

The actual ELI5 for >>25343928 would be something like:
Crypto uses a type of cryptography that relies on the difficulty of guessing giant random numbers. Classical computers have to try random numbers one by one, which is a lot of work, while quantum computers have a way to get the right number in just a few tries.

>>25347339
>with little to no fucking proof
The computers already exist and you can rent them at AWS right now. So go ahead. Go crazy.

We have only, in the last 12 months, finally made these processors. They have up to 8 qubits as I understand. But the one at AWS has only one, as I understand. I haven't used them myself.

>>25347457
>So how exactly does the entire protocol change?
The only thing that will change in the bitcoin protocol is the encryption algorithms. Right now, bitcoin uses three quantum-vulnerable algorithms. These three will be replaced with quantum-resistant algorithms. And then at some point, the old blockchain will be frozen to prevent anyone from untangling it. There will likely be a window to claim your coins. If you don't claim them in time, then once quantum computers can break the old algorithms, your coins will be swept up by thieves, or frozen forever, depending how the community wants to handle it.

It'll be a hard fork; like segwit was. The community will decide by voting with node usage and economic usage.

>Would it be possible to ensure continuity by using the deprecated private keys as some sort of hashing string for the new keys?
No, once it's broken, it'll be impossible to definitively claim. Because the only proof of ownership that you currently have is your private key. Well once it's broken, your private key will be easily discovered. When you have two men, holding the same private key, both claiming to be the original, how can you prove who is honest? I don't think it's possible.

We might.... might find a way. Because hashing algorithms are not perfect. Two different private keys can make the same public key. If the quantum computer isn't programmed quite perfectly, then perhaps if this happens, you can have some sort of trace or pattern in the forged key. For example, if you have a photograph, then someone steals the photo and xerox copies it, it'll leave traces and smudges that indicate it's a xerox and not the original.

>>25347339
>T. actual physicst
kill yourself you retarded /pol/ schizo larper

>>25347524
I don't know what makes some men so pessimistic about this technology. But if you're interested in quantum computing, please do your own research before dismissing it like this anon does. There is a reason there's a huge fucking underground tube that costs billions of dollars under Switzerland.... and they are building another one, even bigger... pic related.

>>25347670
There is a long way to go yes, but I haven't heard anything quite along the lines of what you're describing. But yes we just this year build safe functioning processors. They are certainly imperfect, full of errors.

>>25347732
Everything you said is true and to the point, but I was trying to help anon understand everything. Especially why quantum is revolutionary and how, specifically, it could harm bitcoin.

I don't appreciate the insults. I'm a successful programmer, multimillionaire, and quantum engineer (this last label doesn't mean much yet, still learning).

>>25346625
Any country with a combination of fusion, renewables, nuclear and an infrastructure supporting electric vehicles and battery production will be able to disregard the US and OPEC's monopoly on oil. The value in that power to be able to disregard the current oil/energy regime is > than the profit margins made from simply increasing energy prices.

Simply, it is the best interest in the US to surpress any alternative energy to oil as it allows them to have greater control of the global economy and thus a greater interest to their economic benefit. Its possible for the current push in electric vehicle infrastructure and related electric tech is because the US has already developed viable nuclear fusion in secrecy. Supporting/furthering the tech that is supported by cheap energy from nuclear fusion would only strengthen the US as the jumpstart in tech would push it way past it's competitors.

I don't mean to attention-seek, but I'm going to sleep, if anons quote me, sorry I don't answer. I think I gave you guys enough info to get started. Stay optimistic. And thanks for the guys who appreciated me, I'm glad I can help you.

Quantum computing is real.
Will it be used to steal your $68.75 of shitcoins? No.

>>25347877
I'm not pessimistic, I even brought up the possibility of having a quantum coprocessor in consumer computers. The facts I quoted comparing classical VS quantum computers are not my opinion, those are results from computability theory (which, being mathematics, is not bound to change from advancements in tech)

It also doesn't matter who you are. If you talk about a "both" state, you deserve to be smacked