Bitcoin vs Banks on Quantum FUD

I’m hearing a lot of bitcoiners incorrectly defending quantum FUD. They would say: the banks (or even nuclear weapon codes) will get cracked first before bitcoin. Yet banks have a much simpler defense: don’t use public key encryption.

I don’t see Quantum as a threat to bitcoin because (1) The Lindy effect of Quantum being just a hype; (2) difficulty of Quantum error correction; (3) quantum resistant protocols that bitcoin can adopt if Quantum ever becomes a real threat.

Still, I think it’s important to avoid making straw-man arguments when responding to Quantum FUD.

In public key encryption the attacker sees two things (1) the public key; (2) a bunch of gabbadyguck (the encrypted message, or in case of bitcoin: a signature). Yet banks can use non-public key encryption by giving you a special encryption passcode over the mail or at an office (sharing a secret privately) that you can use to do online banking. With that kind of encryption the attacker sees is a bunch of gabbadyguck (random sequence of bytes) and nothing else. That means that quantum cannot break your fiat bank.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.