I for one am grateful for the work of those who seek ways to make Bitcoin quantum-secure.
I remember back in my freshman year of college, which would've been nearly twenty years ago now, hearing about quantum computers and thinking we might have them in a decade.
When I first bought bitcoin, it was with the notion in mind that maybe one day quantum computers at scale would exist, that one day the Bitcoin network might have to upgrade for it, as it has updated in the past for other things. Bitcoin is resilient against many risks, but I've generally thought that to be one worth watching.
I think some of the recent concerns about quantum are overdone. Bitcoin goes through seasons, and this is clearly quantum season. But it is true that some institutions and potential large buyers are worrying about bitcoin's quantum resistance, and thus its price can be impacted even if the software is not. This can pass, in time. And those who develop potential mitigation paths, that help figure out what the most efficient and resilient upgrades would be if they are needed, are doing good work on that front.
Much like how some people are understandably spooked by just the risk of quantum (i.e. even if you believe there's a ~5% chance of it happening in some investable time horizon, that factors into your expected value analysis), others are understandably relieved by knowing that people are working on it and that mitigation paths do exist. And I'm glad they're doing that.
Replies (28)
There is much more incentive to making Bitcoin quantum resistant than incentives to break it with quantum computers. And this incentives dynamic is Bitcoin's fortress.
💜💜💜 quantum resilience good
You left out the people tired of 'maintainers' trying to 'develop' bitcoin into something which is non-monetary. This is clearly by far the most credible risk vector.
would be nice if you actually learned about what "quantum" could theoretically, marketing-wise do. it's not breaking hashes of pubkeys.
it's breaking pubkeys. like the ones that you expose when you use taproot.
now go examine the commentary about why they decided not to put a hash over the pubukey for taproot, and let me know if you learned something about cryptography.
Seems like pulling precious metals from asteroids is on a similar timeline to having CRQC so it’s interesting to me that gold falling from the skies isn’t a concern for the gold market. At least bitcoin can innovate it’s way through this. Innovation will only serve to expand the gold supply.
This is some condescending bs right hurrrr
What a level headed take, people here will hate it 😅
Truly grateful for this deep and thoughtful perspective! Just like Bitcoin itself, your view is resilient and forward-looking. The fact that teams are working on quantum resistance shows the network is always ready for any threat. This is the real spirit of Bitcoin maximalism: patience, long-term vision, and trust in the network. Keep stacking sats and spreading the signal! #BitcoinForever🧡
I remember back in my freshman year of college, hearing about AI and thinking we might have a useful form of in a decade.
That was wrong, it turned out.
But only the decade part.
I’m not worried about quantum, I’m worried about people using quantum as an excuse to make changes in bitcoin that will have adverse consequences
Because you still have to mine them, ton by ton, you can't just tow one of these to earth, put a parachute on it and done.
Whereas if a lab right now today had a number of quantum machines running 2k logical qubits and 1b gates, Bitcoin would be game over in a week. As in game truly over. Yeah we're nowhere near, but we are at 100 logical qubits and advances in error-correction means there is a clear theoretical path to billions of gates. So it's not crazy pills.
Different threat types.
This years’ TABConf was branded as the “Quantum edition”. Hunter Beast led a great panel about BIP 360 and additional approaches. As a pleb with enough technical chops to appreciate the devs discussion, I departed with a great feeling of comfort that we are in good hands with very smart thought leaders shepherding the plan.
I think that the amount of attention we give to a a change proposal to bitcoin should be based on computer science and rational threat assessment.
VCs and other vested interests' shouldn't be able to shape that conversation with bullshit chicken little narratives.
Fair, but it doesn’t require new leaps in technology, just capital investment. If gold continues to climb it will become economical
I think so, but there will be a long period where mining in space is only marginally more economical than mining on earth. Basically there's no lights out moment, and that's price in.
For Bitcoin, as quantum develops markets will start pricing in a potential lights out moment. That is unless Bitcoin starts to work a little harder on quantum resistance. Which I very much wonder about, since much of the Bitcoin community is basically Amish in this regard.
Great to hear Lyn talking about this topic.
Yes, there are many edge cases to explore and itf we can show that there are contingency plans in place, I think that will put many minds at ease
I'm more worried about nonverbal autistic children draining my cold storage by reading my mind, personally.
You all make me laugh. Quantum would have nothing to do with breaking hashes.
YOUR CODE YOUR NODE!
Bitcoin's Y2K moment
Human nature is very basic with incentives or motivation. Fear and predictability are very important to humans.
Yes, have a “plan” eases our mind but I think clearly representing the actual probability of quantum destroying Bitcoin is needed as well.
Our abilities to adapt throughout history is our species super power. The intelligence to find solutions to the biggest and smallest problems is what makes us apex.
Quantum may have “risks” to watch out for, but bitcoiners allowing it to destroy #bitcoin…nope.
You have a better chance of all of humanity waking up one day and realizing that Elon Musk becoming a Trillionaire is a cancer.
This
Risk assessments and BIP proposals must remain based on real computer science not VC panicans, imo
I’ll take any bet, at any odds: no programmable quantum computer will have factored 91 by 2036.
Ummm, like, to be quantum secure it has to run via quantum, amiright?
No
PQ algos would be very bad for the network. QC FUD scares people away from freedom tech and the science is flawed. Einstein and Schrodinger were right. (And they never lost any debates with Bhor or changed their positions, despite the historical rewrite.)
CRQC is not going to happen because superposition (or "stupid position" as my 8yrld son called if earlier tonight, when I explained it to him) isn't real. This is fist science.
(And neither is "many worlds" btw, which is an even more absurd attempt to fix the nonlocality problem. Nobody is going to break any keys in a parallel universe either. .. It's a sign of our times that it needs to be said.)
ECC is our best shot at freedom and I'm a bit concerned that entertaining the FUD just gives this attack on it credence and emboldens people who want to do this ugly thing to the network for various incentive-driven reasons.
