pull down to refresh
216 sats \ 18 replies \ @freetx 22h \ on: Lopp proposes Post Quantum Migration BIP bitcoin
This seems like a sensible approach. I think it would be better to spend our "developer consensus capital" on something like this than on more "scaling" infrastructure.
I'm not anti-covenants in principle, but the QC issues are so potentially damaging (although very low probability) that it seems that even quasi-ossification proponents could get behind it....
No, this is just as retarded as covenants, worse in fact ... They go hand in hand
This is an attempt to normalize forced upgrades
Quantum is a hoax
reply
reply
The quantum hoax? just posted a link to a decent video on it
To put it even more simply though that scaling the number of qubits needed to crack a key is fundamentally no different than directly cracking the key... its all just scammer word games to explain why it doesn't work and they need more money for R&D... scammers in Bitcoin then ride the FUD train.
reply
Sorry, but this is your source? An AI-generated video talking about a huge conspiracy theory no one could see through and just kept pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into?
I agree that the media often exaggerate things for clicks, but that isn't an argument against technology. I would like to hear an argument that couldn't be used in history against computers, airplanes or AI. These two cited guys are probably basing their calculations on the assumption that things will go in the same direction, but nobody knows if there won't be a breakout in the future (and as always there will be).
reply
It's not a source, intuition is the source. The video articulates some things for people without such intuition.
Orgs poured billions into shitcoins too, all hoaxes. Doesn't require a conspiracy, people are just retarded.
Reality is there's no tangible quantum supremacy to prove the concept, it's just a story that's dragged on for decades without material progress. Handwaving that it could happen in the future is capitulation to this fact, aliens could visit and gift us such magic, but that's not a realistic roadmap.
reply
reply
:finger_pointing_up:
what this guy said. with the disclaimer that I can't tell if quantum is a hoax or not, but I trust my instincts.
reply
Quantum is a hoax
xDDDDDDDD Thank good you are not the decision maker. Feel free to have this incorrect opinion, but don't get in the way of us other people fixing the issue instead of pretending it's not a problem.
reply
And who are you exactly? Just because your ego wants to believe it can solve a problem doesn't make the problem real. I'll call out your delusions as I see fit, scammer.
Such a quantum threat would also be a quantum miner, making key-cracking superfluous.
reply
Such a quantum threat would also be a quantum miner, making key-cracking superfluous.
Wtf are you talking about. Quantum threat is only about breaking key-signing of UTXOs.
When it comes to mining, quantum algos improves SHA generation only slightly, nothing game changing.
Anyways its clear from this post that you are clueless, so its an end-of-topic from my side.
reply
clueless
You're fudding a computing hoax going back to the 70's thats still not doing anything, yea you're a real expert
Coherence of the number of qubits needed to crack a signing key is exactly as achievable as brute forcing it, it's a scam, same difficulty with new wording
reply
yea you're a real expert
I wouldn't go that far, but nevertheless I added my remarks to the PR discussion for this BIP. I encourage you to do the same on the github PR page! Surely you have some useful insight to share with the community xDDD
reply
Which part?
It seems like Bitcoin may become plagued with omnibus-ism: if we're gonna do a soft fork for quant, we might as well do the great consensus cleanup...
reply