Scott Aaronson calls it merely a “staggeringly hard” engineering problem, rather than something requiring new fundamental physics discoveries. To put it another way, with quantum we are in the equivalent of nuclear fission in 1939 – known to be possible with no theoretical roadblocks remaining, but still requiring an enormous engineering lift
Ok fair enough, but warp drive, Dyson spheres, and information teleporters are also "theoretically possible" with "known physics" and only requires a "staggeringly hard" engineering problems
A more realistic counter example is fusion energy. How long has that been promised but we still don't have any commercially viable fusion reactors
The whole fabricated drama with QC is to make clueless people to sell their corn or not to buy corn, so they can accumulate more. This is a grabbing tactic.
Is simple: you are scared about QC against Bitcoin? Sell now all your corn and walk away to fiat. Such pussies.
From the article -
"And the truth is, insuring against quantum risk would be “cheap”, because developers are mostly engaged in pointless navel gazing. The main developer priority over the last decade has been the lightning-based scaling model, which has simply been a failure."
How can i take someone seriously who says this? Stacker News is "lightning-based" and i use it every day.
Additionally, because a huge fraction of the vulnerable coins are held in abandoned addresses, and the owners of those addresses simply cannot be compelled to move their coins, even if Bitcoin does upgrade to post-quantum signatures, it still faces the risk that 1.7m coins are abruptly seized by a quantum attacker.
Maybe my bags are too small, but I don't see this as any kind of problem. So what?
Satoshi: If the hash breakdown came gradually, we could transition to a new hash in an orderly way. The software would be programmed to start using a new hash after a certain block number. Everyone would have to upgrade by that time. The software could save the new hash of all the old blocks to make sure a different block with the same old hash can't be used.
It seems to me that we are at such a juncture that a set of 5-10 credible proposals should be collected, discussed by the developer community, agreed feasible timelines for each, then set a block number by which a solution should be implemented and users should have migrated.
It's not necessary that old addresses stop working, but spending from them should become incrementally more expensive, until they are drained by miner fees. If they are never moved then they are left as a quantum bounty, like Satoshi's coin.
If there are hard forks because no consensus on the solution can be reached then so be it, multiple solutions, let the market decide on the best one.
Ok fair enough, but warp drive, Dyson spheres, and information teleporters are also "theoretically possible" with "known physics" and only requires a "staggeringly hard" engineering problems
A more realistic counter example is fusion energy. How long has that been promised but we still don't have any commercially viable fusion reactors
The whole fabricated drama with QC is to make clueless people to sell their corn or not to buy corn, so they can accumulate more. This is a grabbing tactic.
Is simple: you are scared about QC against Bitcoin? Sell now all your corn and walk away to fiat. Such pussies.
From the article - "And the truth is, insuring against quantum risk would be “cheap”, because developers are mostly engaged in pointless navel gazing. The main developer priority over the last decade has been the lightning-based scaling model, which has simply been a failure."
How can i take someone seriously who says this? Stacker News is "lightning-based" and i use it every day.
More often than not, it's the exact people not using or doing things that declare it failed or impossible.
Maybe my bags are too small, but I don't see this as any kind of problem. So what?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191.0
It seems to me that we are at such a juncture that a set of 5-10 credible proposals should be collected, discussed by the developer community, agreed feasible timelines for each, then set a block number by which a solution should be implemented and users should have migrated.
It's not necessary that old addresses stop working, but spending from them should become incrementally more expensive, until they are drained by miner fees. If they are never moved then they are left as a quantum bounty, like Satoshi's coin.
If there are hard forks because no consensus on the solution can be reached then so be it, multiple solutions, let the market decide on the best one.
deleted by author