IBM

chinmaya_swain

RHEL5, IBM R51, 756 MB RAM and 40 GB hard drive. Mined Bitcoin while I was preparing for Competitive exams in 2010 in India. I remember confirming getting a couple of blocks, then I ran it for a year. That wallet.dat is what I miss. It is not even encrypted. I am not sure where that R51 is now and more importantly if that Hard Drive survives or not. But, it was a fun thing to do while it lasted not knowing what it could have amounted to.

Romanizer

By Google, IBM or Microsoft, whoever comes first and gets guidance by the government of how to distribute. The whole foundation is still working. Quantum computers can't change supply and nobody has access if they don't see your public key.

TapThatYak

Most definitely. It's like early stages of IBM, Google, and Microsoft.

ThereIsNoGovernance

Hilarious indeed Mr. QC researcher guy who just happens to post on this subreddit! But unfortunately Cramer was right, and did the right thing with the advice of that really savvy IBM CEO guy! Why? Becuz this: QC will be able to crack keys that would take 300 trillion years of the entire planets classic (i.e. actually functional) computational resources. It's going to happen any old day now. Really, it's only moments from reality. \- brought to you by the makers of ***Quantum Coolaid***™

leeharrison1984

Doing anything based on IBM guidance is hilarious. They haven't made waves in decades, they're a dinosaur.

Timely-Fig2030

You have to understand that people in the 80s had the same mindset like you. They thought IBM is so powerful and nothing will ever come close. They didn't know that things would ever change. But then they changed.

Timely-Fig2030

At some point BTC won't stay first. It will always play a role but it won't stay nr.1 forever. It happens over and over again in history. BTC is only 18 years old. IBM used to be market leader for 30 years until the 90s. Then more modern companies like apple overtook them. IBM is still here. But it's not the king anymore.

Timely-Fig2030

It's like saying computers should have ended with IBM. Luckily, there was some more innovation... But that doesn't mean we need to go with shit.

AutoModerator

Post is by: chona_Yu and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1vi7blx/did_jim_cramer_accidentally_bring_more_attention/ With Jim Cramer saying he'll sell his Bitcoin because of quantum computing, it seems like the discussion has suddenly become mainstream. A year ago, most people brushed it off as a problem for the distant future. Now we've got IBM, Google, Bitcoin developers, governments, and major financial firms all talking about post-quantum security in one way or another. Do you think the crypto industry is finally taking the issue seriously, or is this still being overhyped? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Timely-Fig2030

Many conservatives had the same opinion when they sticked to IBM with their dark, conservative suits (dress code) in the 80s. Heck, how could they go wrong when they did what they thought the masses wanted while singing "Our IBM Salesmen" Song. Yep, then the radicals arrived and changed game, biatch.

Milcah_Ganderton

The "quantum threat by 2028" thing gets recycled every few years, but honestly if IBM actually cracks usable quantum computing that fast, Bitcoin's problems would be the least of our worries. Post-quantum crypto standards are already in development anyway, so it's not like we're sitting ducks.

mastercoder123

Rsa 2048 can be very easily defeated in days by a quantum computer running shors algorithm, and once you crack rsa 2048 its game over. You dont need to guess their keys cause you can just look at the wallet id, which is just a hashed public id and reverse engineer the private key. Ecc 256 would take minutes to crack if you can crack rsa 2048 in a day. IBM targets 2000 logical qubits by 2033, which is enough to crack ecc 256 in minutes and rsa 2048 in a week to a month

opossum_cz

IBM: Hacking (also called cyber hacking) is the use of unconventional or illicit means to gain unauthorized access to a digital device, computer system or computer network. Sophos: Hacking is the process of identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities within a computer system, network, or digital device to gain access or control over its components. At its core, hacking involves manipulating digital systems to perform actions they were not originally designed or intended to allow. Cambridge Dictionary: the activity of getting into someone else's computer system without permission in order to find out information or do something illegal. Cornell Law School: In a legal context, hacking is a term for utilizing an unconventional or illicit means to gain unauthorized access to a digital device, computer system, or network. Hacking is a federal crime. The National Coordinator for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience is responsible for protecting Americans from cyber threats originating domestically or abroad. Trend Micro: Hacking is the act of gaining unauthorised access to computer systems, networks, or data. It typically involves exploiting vulnerabilities in software, hardware, or human behaviour to bypass security controls.

WolfBob808

I got out completely on Friday when IBM’s CEO warned quantum computing will crack the Bitcoin code in 3 or 4 years. I will get back in if there is a fix.

Saffuran

In a roundabout sense, but mostly the science of actual science, which can lead to developments that make more money. IBM isn't out there worrying about cracking cryptocurrency.

Prior_Parsley3960

summary for those of us in the smooth brain brigade This is an important milestone for **quantum computing**, but **not** a major change for Bitcoin. IBM is showing that fault-tolerant quantum computing is progressing, yet we're still well short of the scale needed to threaten modern cryptography. # What happened * IBM announced it achieved what it calls **"trusted quantum advantage."** * Researchers encoded **70 logical qubits** (error-corrected qubits) and completed a computation they say is beyond the practical capabilities of today's best classical simulation methods. * The experiment also introduced a new verification technique designed to provide greater confidence that the quantum computer produced the correct result—addressing a longstanding criticism of many previous "quantum advantage" claims. # Why it matters * **The biggest advance is error correction, not raw qubit count.** Building useful quantum computers isn't simply about adding more qubits; it's about making them reliable enough to perform long computations without accumulating errors. Demonstrating 70 **logical** qubits is considerably more meaningful than announcing hundreds or even thousands of noisy physical qubits. * **Bitcoin is not in immediate danger.** Breaking Bitcoin's ECDSA signatures is generally believed to require **thousands of logical qubits** operating with very low error rates over millions to billions of quantum operations. IBM's demonstration—while impressive—is still **orders of magnitude** below that threshold. # Bottom line The real story isn't that **quantum computers can now crack Bitcoin**—they cannot. The story is that IBM continues to make measurable progress on the hardest engineering challenge in quantum computing: **building reliable, fault-tolerant systems**. Each milestone like this shortens the path to practical quantum computing, but the industry still faces substantial scaling challenges before cryptography becomes a realistic target. **What to watch:** * Whether IBM can execute on its roadmap toward **\~200 logical qubits by 2029**, as planned. * Progress by competitors such as Google, Quantinuum, IonQ, and PsiQuantum on fault-tolerant architectures. * Development and deployment of **post-quantum cryptography** across major systems—including Bitcoin, where migration to quantum-resistant signature schemes would likely begin **well before** hardware capable of breaking today's cryptography exists. # Where are we on the road to "Q-Day"? If we think of the quantum threat to Bitcoin as a marathon: * **Today's milestone (70 logical qubits):** \~**10–15%** of the way there. * **Likely minimum to threaten Bitcoin:** **Thousands** of high-quality logical qubits plus sustained, fault-tolerant computation. * **Practical timeline:** Most experts still view this as **years to decades**, with considerable uncertainty. In other words, this is **an important engineering milestone** rather than a security emergency. It reinforces that organizations should continue preparing for a post-quantum future, but it does **not** meaningfully change the near-term risk to Bitcoin or other systems using modern public-key cryptography.

CXgamer

Interesting challenge! My 10 year claim was coming from a quantum algorithm designer during a presentation during the Qiskit quantum summer school last 2 weeks. Most of the current challenges are coming from noise (mitigation, avoidance, correction and reduction). What's also interesting is how they've integrated traditional computer into the stack; hybrid quantum computing, and this enables some algorithms to be optimized to use less qubits this way. But I don't know what other nuances this guy kept in mind while giving his estimate, though his other colleagues didn't correct his claim either. Regardless, this is only true for IBM quantum and public research. Military quantum is opaque.