Worried about quantum computing overpowering SHA-256, but not the 4-digit PIN securing your bank account?
https://blossom.primal.net/f31e608ef68c6d77962943537d19a728927d826f2b62b0e657470e92c9694d0f.mov
Discussion
Hey hey hey... Don't start bringing logic into our scare tactic discussions.
I don't get this. Like if you try 10x the PIN code, they block your account.
No one do this on bitcoin.
It's line comparing oranges to apples, I don't get this argument.
And how securely do you think that PIN is being stored on the bank’s back end?
Not in plain text, of course. That would be insecure because employees, not because QC. QC isn't a threat for Bitcoin for the time being, not for online bank accounts either.
nostr:nprofile1qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq36amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wvf5hgcm0d9hx2u3wwdhkx6tpdshsqgxcq7uztlfjdpdzmhhehlpsh4hwf3275rsu58am9cnkuuuydpt5mclfk8rv
I mean the consequences would be so comprehensive... In bitcoin there would be lots of scamish quantum addresses converter wallets...
In legacy "your" fiat would be blocked and only unlocked presencially (after months, maybe, of the attack), in cash. Maybe they would even print actual paper money on demand, Treasure would outsource the printer directly to the banks.
Who knows
😂👌
😁
banks dont need consensus, soft fork/hard fork discussions or have into account coins that don't upgrade. My bank account is also not on a public ledger. banks will upgrade much sooner. Satoshi coins will be a prime target for QC, it's a free treasure.
those coins have never moved, nobody knows the public keys, only hashes. that's infeasible even for qc.
why people still repeat this nonsense?
(not to mention, that there is always an option of a soft fork locking those coins).
even is Satoshis coins didn't move other big wallets did or can do it. SF locking coins that don't upgrade can be seen as confiscation. Either way banks don't have any of these issues, they will upgrade first and your bank account is not on a public ledger.
bitcoin wallets has been quantum resistant for a while....
☝🏻
Not to be a bummer here, but they hash those pins so that there isn't a clear text database of everyone's pins.
"securing"
"your"
"Bank"
Ha, I have 500$ daily withdrawal limit, and I am not afraid to lower it more.
Amazing to still see so many "well actually" people defending the security promises from a third party managing a fake ledger of wealth they don't own...
I'm not worried about the 10$ in my bank account being stolen by quantum.
I'm not worried about quantum for sha-256.
I am worried about the quantum risks for the elliptic curve for my only asset (btc), which can not be insured and no one would ever pay me back, no matter how many lawsuits I file and no matter how blue in the face I get.
It seems like such a basic deduction, yet 95% of people absolutely don't make it.
SHA-256 isn’t the issue. It’s ECDSA
How do ratw limits play into this? 4 digit pin w/ 4 guesses vs sha-256 and infinite guesses. Not saying quantum isnt bs but no one talks abut bank rate limits on login attempts.
This is not a valid argument because banks can easily enforce a rate limit on accounts
No one knows what a quantum world will look like or if it ever happens.
2FA is the banks solution
But i was told that "2025 is the first year we entered the Quantum risk event horizon" 🥲
Funny how people fear sci-fi threats while trusting their life savings to a code you could guess before your coffee gets cold.