pull down to refresh
the pin was one example, but Quantum could quite easily breach a bank's database as well, no?
im also still interested in what other things quantum has the potential to break.
With BTC, as far as i understand, we have to just hope the community can agree on a quantum-resistant fork
Also a bad example. Do you think you can just log in to a bank's database with unlimited tries?
Look. Bitcoin relies ONLY on cryptographic assumptions. Banks are centralized and much easier to secure. And it's anyway FUD at this point.
if you're truly interested, here's your learning list:
- Learn what algorithms are used in Bitcoin
- Learn about all these algorithms that are applicable
- Learn about Quantum Compute and what is really going on, not what some fuckbois post on social media to get Elmo revshare or zaps on nostr/sn.
- While you're at it, learn about semiprime factoring to understand why many of the classical algos are vulnerable to magic
we have to just hope the community can agree on a quantum-resistant fork
Why? Are you nervous? You're only nervous because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. So... start learning.
My main question here is about how quantim will affect other assets and traditional banking, not sure why it has triggered you so much.
According to you, banks will be fine, and it's all fud.
I'm not interested in how quantum affects bitcoin, and I'm not particularly nervous about it either.
You seem to be more interested in constantly making this about bitcoin and insulting me instead and being rude.
You don't have assets in traditional banks. You are an unsecured creditor to a bank, not an asset holder. What assets the bank has of yours are simply a liability to the bank. Keep in mind that there are 9 other people in your bank that share a claim on the same fake dollar.
Apologies to be savage; didn't mean to insult though. If you know, then you know, and I'm sorry if I mis-assessed that.
Every algorithm that depends on the discrete logarithm problem or on integer factorization is vulnerable to Shor's. So basically everything that was state-of-the-art until 2016 or so, with a few exceptions, but not many. Bottom line, everything a decade old and not updated, is potentially vulnerable. The reason why it makes no sense to list "individual assets" is because the only things that have real issues are decentralized things or those that cannot be easily upgraded.
So a parking meter working on CE5, or a vending machine with WinXP, will feel more friction in the upgrade path than, say, your browser, your bank, and so on.
4 digit pin is secured with TDEA (with CMAC, if I'm not mistaken, it's been a while) and it is limited to 3 tries. Check out Grover's algo to see why you're not comparing apples to apples.
The problem with Bitcoin is: unlimited tries, and the thing that would come under attack is ECDSA, not encryption. This is Shor's algo, not Grover's.
PS: baseline Y2K wasn't FUD. It was numerical overflow. That's a real issue today, and a source of many many many exploits in the wild.