I wrote an article recently to go over my thoughts, and discuss a few possibilities of what might happen. It's not the existential danger some folks are saying, but definitely some things to keep an eye out for.
https://btcgrok.substack.com/p/will-quantum-computing-destroy-bitcoin
Thank you very much. I will read the article. I am really interested on the topic. I will give you my opinion. Have a nice day!
It's actually not possible to scale beyond an absolute max system of 170 coherent real qbits for one hour. (Lindblad master equation in perfect isolation with silent measurement.) Shor on a Bitcoin key requires a wave function on a system of ~2k qbits for hours. It is physically impossible to create a quantum computer that will crack a Bitcoin key. 100% FUD.
Do you have a source for this? It's not a perspective I've come across before. Everything I know about quantum computers and encryption disagrees. Do you believe Bitcoin is unique in this, or are more forms of encryption naturally as quantum-resistant?
It's like getting the truth about any sensitive question. Look at the incentives. Virtually anyone with access to the knowledge has incentive not to say it, at least not too loud.
You can find a few good scientists who will say it softly and politely. They all have to eat dinner with colleagues who have staked their careers on it. I don't have that problem. You can reason through it yourself from first principles. Solve the lindblad master equation with all the external noise parameters set to zero. It gives you the limit of SELF-decoherence. All the data ever gathered is consistent with lindblad. That's the wall between quantum and classical.
Here is an example of the soft, cautious, polite society version:
Mikhail Dyakonov** – Exponential control + decoherence caps QC forever.
Article: https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-case-against-quantum-computing
Well the author certainly knows what they are talking about, I appreciate the link. I'm not convinced of their argument though, which seems to be more of a case of "it will be incredibly difficult" rather than a physical impossibility. Whenever somebody says "it can't be done", whatever "it" is tends to not only be do-able, but do-able soon enough that the detractors feel a bit silly for having said it.
Telling somebody 30 years ago that you could store 2TB on a chip the size of your thumbnail would have them laughing in your face, and that's not even counting future improvements in storage technology. Tech finds a way. 😉 All that said, I'll probably read up a bit more on it. Thanks again.
This is a confusion between engineering challenges and natural laws. There are no perpetual motion machines because there can't be. Nothing goes faster than light because reality doesn't work that way. If you can grok what lindblad actually models, you will see what I am saying for yourself. It's actually profoundly simple. Don't trust verify.
Exactly, this is the point. We never know the limits of a technology until it is too late. I am scared of this. My knowledge about Quantum Computing is very limited, I don't have the knowledge of the people who are debating here. But I think we need to be aware of QC since with AI things can get faster than expected. Of course, tech has also its limits and when it comes to quantum, it is such a complicated thing to develop. Also it is true that if Quantum evolves, we will be able to solve very specific and unbelievable problems and we will find solutions to certain issues. Maybe thanks to QC we will be able to protect #bitcoin and encryption better than we can do it today. We don't know which technologies will emerge from QC, maybe we cannot even imagine them today. For example, someone 50 years ago couldn't imagine the internet.
Thanks for sharing. I will read it too.
