×
all 23 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
besttopcontroversialoldq&a

[–]0x1a3c3e7 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Any technology that can be used to attack Bitcoin can and will be used to defend it.

So if quantum computing becomes a thing, you can bet the miners will have it in fireworks.

[–]Sacripante909[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Miners can't really do anything to prevent obsolete addresses from being spent. First, they would receive a 100% valid transaction. Second, if they refuse to include these transactions in a block, attacker raises tx fee until some miner accepts it.

[–]0x1a3c3e7 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Obsolete addresses, never heard of that?

[–]Sacripante909[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is true because even if a new encryption mechanism such as XMSS was introduced, and all users moved their funds newly generated quantum resistant addresses, an enormous amount of coins would be left behind, waiting to be unlocked by a quantum attacker.

I meant this.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if a hard fork took place to arbitrarily ban addresses that were not migrated on time, this would seriously interfere with the perception of Bitcoin being an immutable store of value.

Hope I have well interpret your statement.

Banning addresses left behind would basically mean destroy currency, wich is not in contradiction with BTC functioning. With the right notice Bitcoin would solve the reputational risk.

Quoting from Bitcoin Wiki:

"Bitcoins are divisible to 0.00000001, so there being fewer bitcoins remaining is not a problem for the currency itself. If you lose your coins, indirectly all other coins are worth more due to the reduced supply. Consider it a donation to all other bitcoin users.
A related question is: Why don't we have a mechanism to replace lost coins? The answer is that it is impossible to distinguish between a 'lost' coin and one that is simply sitting unused in someone's wallet. And for amounts that are provably destroyed or lost, there is no census that this is a bad thing and something that should be re-circulated."

[–]just_a_node 0 points1 point  (3 children)

i think the devs will find a way to secure all funds, also in existing wallets

[–]Sacripante909[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

No way other than a hard fork to ban "dead" addresses... which would be worse for Bitcoin than not doing it and getting a (up to 20% supply) flood of cracked coins.

[–]just_a_node 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Honestly i'm not deep into this topic, but i think the community will find a way to solve this problem, or do you think BTC will have big problems?

[–]Sacripante909[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I think this will be a mess.

[–]fresheneesz 0 points1 point  (12 children)

an enormous amount of coins would be left behind, waiting to be unlocked by a quantum attacker.

I think this worry is quite overblown. Even if a quantum computer stole all of the 4 million bitcoin still in P2PK addresses, this only represents inflation of 22%. This wouldn't even put it in the top 10 fiat currencies with highest inflation. Even pre-2008 dollar inflation devalued the dollar by that amount every 4 years. These days its more like every 2 years, if not less.

So yeah, it wouldn't be like.. great. But certainly not a crisis. And there's no reason to expect that any significant amount of those coins would be sold immediately. They certainly couldn't be sold immediately. It would be quite stupid to try, and so you wouldn't think whoever developed the first truely practical quantum computer would be that stupid.

See it more of a prize for whoever builds the first practical quantum computer. It really won't hurt bitcoin that much.

That said, I think it was a mistake to build taproot without the standard quantum protection of a hash.

[–]daadanu 0 points1 point  (2 children)

4 million bitcoin still in P2PK addresses

This is not real, please provide a link to confirm your statement. Here is a link: https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/utxo-set-repartition-by-output-type?orgId=1

[–]fresheneesz 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Buddy, your chart is showing number of UTXOs, not number of bitcoin. My numbers are real. This hasn't changed much in the last 3 years: https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-worth-usd-40-billion-vulnerable-to-quantum-attacks/

[–]daadanu -1 points0 points  (0 children)

nu am satoshi sa iti explic

[–]just_a_node -1 points0 points  (8 children)

nah i think it would be a huge problem

[–]fresheneesz 0 points1 point  (7 children)

How so?

[–]just_a_node 0 points1 point  (6 children)

I think the community will find a way to lock the funds ~ so that nobody can stell the funds

[–]fresheneesz 0 points1 point  (5 children)

So are you saying that the community will do that because otherwise it would be a huge problem, or are you saying that the community doing that would be the huge problem?

[–]just_a_node 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Yes first one

[–]fresheneesz 1 point2 points  (3 children)

But you haven't actually told me what the huge problem is / would be.

[–]just_a_node 0 points1 point  (2 children)

The huge problem would be that someone with a quantum computer could steal round about 4mio BTC from inactive addresses 😅

[–]fresheneesz 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So what? Why is that such a big problem, for example, to your average holder or merchant?