pull down to refresh

How hard will it be to reach consensus about a quantum upgrade ?
537 sats \ 11 comments \ @stack_harder 22h bitcoin
Ok, so when the topic of quantum threats comes up, people usually say, well, we can do a soft fork to make it quantum resistant etc. Fair enough.
But after seeing the chaos of core v knotts, i wonder, how much chaos would ensue when. Nostr is like 80% tribal warfare at the moment.
Now you could say it should, in theory, be a less contentious issue, but I don't think i buy that at all, it will be quantum peados or something.
what do you guys think, does it give you any cause for concern?
write
preview
related posts
150 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin 7h
based their track record so far it seems to me that the technical bitcoin community is good at sorting real problems from bs and coming to rough consensus on solutions to the challenges that arise and implementing those solutions with thoughtfulness, care, and the appropriate level of urgency. so I feel good about their/our ability to address potential quantum threats with effective solutions on a reasonable timeline.
reply
202 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 19h
@schmidty was kind enough to post the transcripts of the October 20th Bitcoin Core Dev meeting and this was among the topics discussed. link
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin 8h
there was also a quantum bitcoin summit back in july, which may be of interest: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8Qx0853DvlPqutRekO3feBCmn2iRkC1k
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 19h
Oh man, I didn't know about these transcripts. Very cool!
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 18h
Some can be very short notes, so it's more useful if you already understand a subject, and I also think that with the current "climate" it will be easy for people to make wrong assumptions based on these, but, as long as people can be civil it is useful.
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 21h
"quantum computing" is just a buzzword to make you pay more for same crap. move on.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Filiprogrammer 3h
what do you guys think, does it give you any cause for concern?
No, because quantum computing is not practical. As far as I am aware the largest number a quantum computer has ever factored using Shor's algorithm was 21.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 15h
Satoshis coins moving would be bad for price but a great way for everyone to company together.
Probably best to start discussing now. Especially about the script type and the weight. I hear it's heavy AF!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 20h
it will be quantum peados or something
Great term! But I don't think we are quite doomed to quantum pedos. Taproot wasn't so long ago and there weren't any root like pedos involved.
It will just take a while and a lot of refinement to the proposals.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules 20h
The bigger problem is that it would take a full year for everyone to migrate to the new quantum resistant wallets at current block size limit, so even if there is just-in-time forced consensus on a solution, it's still going to be too late to avoid chaos.
We need to be more or less agreed on a uncontentious and well tested solution 10 years before a quantum breakthrough.
Thankfully there are lots of eye balls in this that are not those of Bitcoiners, so as long as most big breakthroughs are published and widely propagated it'll be well telegraphed.
Still, plenty of scope for everyone to accuse everyone else of being a psy-op agent.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @035736735e 21h outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.