Nostr Web Client

yeah, that point about nobody has presented proof of a key crack of any kind is my main issue also.

quantum computers can't break AES encryption, either, they would be no better than a supercomputer, so at best they might see a 20% reduction in cost from this, which is still such an absurdly large amount of money that it's completely inconceivable anyone would do it.

until they could scale up electrical generation capacity to a million times more than we have now, it's completely impossible it would even approach becoming economic to break keys. so it's ridiculous. long before that, the countermeasures would be taken, and personally i don't see it even being feasible before at least 50 years.

it'd be a much more practical use of all that energy to do space migration, in terms of opening access to a larger resource base.

the economics just don't favor it. the end.

Jack K 4mo ago 💬 1

The ethos of “don’t trust, verify” seems to come into question in regard to the assumed quantum threat. It’s become “just trust me bro, we need to fork” without any question or verification. This is the real attack on Bitcoin.

The model of centralized quantum computing is the flaw, all claimed qubits exist inside a single machine (node), unverifiable to the outside world. How do you prove a qubit in a black box? Can a qubit even exist meaningfully if it can’t be verified across independent observers? What collapses the state besides fiat decree? Should we fork over trust?

This wall of centralization pushes verification outward to both the theory of quantum mechanics/computing and the economics of the process. We seem to be hitting both sides of the verification, both suggesting there is no threat.

Bitcoin exposes this contradiction. Its qubits (UTXOs) are fully distributed across all nodes, open, auditable, and irreversible. It is the only known system in physics that demonstrates conservation of energy and information without axiom. Physicists should be here studying it. Instead, they keep insisting on centralized models while the decentralized standard already runs at planetary scale open to anyone.

Im not really sure how this resolves. Forking Bitcoin without verification would be the ultimate failure of “don’t trust, verify.” Bitcoin will win in time because its physics is open, while theirs is not.

Bitcoin will win if it can resist the quantum forks.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago 💬 1

bitcoin has added new address and signature types several times already. in the event a credible attack succeeds (presumably at a cost of millions of dollars) it will be trivial to justify adding VDOO or other compact PQ signatures.

until then, it's hype. until there is a proof of concept verifiably demonstrated in the wild (and it must be done such that there is no way the secret was accessible to the people running the machine, or it would look like a hoax), it's irrelevant.

no proof, not verified. disregard.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago 💬 1

also, distributed systems are not quantum anything. they are simply a collection of protocols and applications that speak them that make it possible for multiple replicas of the system, or any components of it, to seem like a single, unified "von neumann machine" with atomic state, with the caveat that usually there is a propagation delay due to light speed. distributed systems are the multi-computer version of concurrrent execution in a single computer.

Jack K 4mo ago

Yes agreed, the distributed nature of Bitcoin does not make it “quantum”.

Bitcoin was equally as quantum at genesis when Satoshi was running the only node versus today when we have arguably the most amount of nodes.

I don’t think quantum systems can achieve further complexity without become a distributed system. We can clearly see this with biology.