RSA
The Republic of South Africa
Mentions (24Hr)
0.00% Today
Reddit Posts
Mentions
SHA256 is not an encryption, it's a hash function. Where a hash function is needed banking systems are likely to use it. Where assymetric encryption or signature systems are needed, banking systems are likely to use RSA or DSA which aren't quantum resistant - like bitcoin which uses a variant of DSA for transaction signing. However adoption of quantum-resistant cyphers and signatures is progressing slowly but surely on the traditional web, with >30% of websites using it. For bitcoin with its decentralized nature it might be a bit tougher to upgrade. Users will have to create new quantum-resistant wallets and actively move their funds into there - but there are a lot of old abandoned wallets and you can't exactly contact all those users, many of whom don't have their private keys. It's likely many of those users won't move their funds and then they can be stolen by a QC. One option is to freeze those funds when a QC threat is tangible, but of course that is a solution with its own issues.
more importantly, this degree of compute power would be incredibly expensive and still require significant time... all for breaking the encryption of ONE wallet... the second it's realized (and likely, much sooner/proactively) the bitcoin code would be forked/changed to increase the security/degree of encryption beyond the capabilities of the QC on the other hand, breaking the encryption of one bank/institution means potentially all accounts /secured data are compromised the fact that bitcoin is decentralized, that accounts are held by the individuals rather than all in one heap is also a major benefit ... the world would likely see some crazy volatility in many respects if RSA is broken but IMO Bitcoin as a tech/protocol/network would likely be one of the most resilient things ... though its value in fiat terms may be volatile the intention and passion behind the function would probably do just fine.
Cuz QCs can't do jack shit. The sole purpose of QC is to raise FUD about crypto. To make people afraid of relying on it to ensure their funds and privacy. This is why they keep reminding us that in less than 10 years all of the collected encrypted internet traffic will be somehow amazingly decrypted and you will go to jail for downloading some shit on the net. Any quantum physicist with an ounce of moral fortitude will explain how utterly infeasible QC is. Its a glorified pipe dream being hyped through every portal. They are actually claiming on many wiki pages that it already breaks RSA and ECC. This is utter and complete BS. QC has never been able to factor any number greater than 21. That is the legal drinking age, i.e. 3x7 not 21 bits or bytes. Try to understand how absolutely ludicrous and preposterous it is for them to make the claim that they can currently break RSA and ECC. Those algos use numbers so huge they are greater than all the electrons in the known universe. Your private key is more than the coordinates to a single grain of sand on a beach. It is the coordinates to a molecule in a grain of sand on a specific beach on a specific planet in a specific galaxy somewhere out there in the vast reaches of space. In other words, if you lose that key your crypto is gone baby gone. More importantly it means that finding that key is literally impossible. No QC will ever get even vaguely close to cracking either RSA or ECC. This will NEVER happen. However, why waste a good scam? As long as they can keep hyping this vapor tech and keep us in fear that we will get caught with our pants down and our fingers in the cookie jar, they will continue to ride this thing and make announcements about new tech with 10x more Qubits that accomplish zilch, but sounds threatening.
Dem qUaNtUm cOmPuDeRs. Yesiree! QC, which has never reliably factored any number greater than 21 (legal drinking age, not 21 bits or bytes) will somehow through the power of pure super genius physicists (who really are just in it to rake in the massive grants given them by the likes of Google, MS, IBM etc. ) will manage to fake up some random number simulation that almost looks like its breaking RSA or ECC, but is just smoke and mirrors. But they are hoping this will somehow give them the ability to claim every cold wallet on the chain, or at least reliably threaten to claim them with all the interesting things that can be with such BS propagandized on the media.
Yes, even in recent blog , RSA hash 256 (I think) it was able to crack in seconds. Crazy stuff it we go it that direction. Almost all of the tech has to go to drawing board.
Current quantum computing power is ~1,200 qubits vs. 1-20 million needed to break RSA/ECC. This will collapse internet security (HTTPS, banking authentication, digital signatures) and cryptocurrency systems by breaking public-key cryptography. Old Bitcoin wallets use ECC cryptography that quantum computers will break. When quantum computers arrive, all Bitcoin using old cryptography becomes vulnerable, active, dormant, lost wallets, doesn’t matter. If Bitcoin upgrades to post-quantum cryptography, there will be a race to steal coins from wallets that haven’t migrated, especially ‘lost’ wallets where owners are dead/missing and can’t upgrade. Probably 1-5 million Bitcoin could become accessible to whoever has quantum capability first.
Nope, you're confusing cryptography with hacking and btc codebase and assuming that because bitcoin cash is an older fork with different variables then it's somehow got easier attack vectors for QC. Not only is it less attractive (lower liquidity and value per attack), if RSA encryption is rendered obsolete then all networks using it or adjacent algorithms with the same weakness to QC have a massive flashing sign saying "free money". All of this can be avoided if BTC and other networks prioritise upgrading cryptography today to prep for tomorrow, otherwise you are investing in a future black swan.
Zero Ziltch Nada. Fucking QC is a FUD psyop. Prove me wrong! Can't even factor a number greater than 21 (legal drinking age, not 21 bits or bytes) IF you believe QC is any threat to current crypto you are gullible AF. And no, embedding lies that QC already cracks ECC or even RSA into every wiki page, does not make it a real threat.
For all the npc’s thinking quantum will end Bitcoin: The Federal Reserve and your checking account is likely the first to be most vulnerable as quantum computing advances, due to its centralized infrastructure and reliance on RSA encryption, which is more immediately threatened by quantum algorithms like Shor's compared to Bitcoin's ECDSA and decentralized mitigation efforts.
one day, at least 10 years from now, quantum computing financed by major player(s) with very deep pockets will have developed a working QC with enough stable Qbits to crack RSA encryption. They are nowhere near right now. AND could potentially develop the specific algorithm (no simple task either) to solve BTC blockchain incursion. However, nefarious organizations will undoubtedly go after much lower hanging more desirable targets like NSA, Government infrastructure, Exchanges and Banks first. In the meantime, the good guys are actively developing quantum encryption counter-measures that cannot be broken. Like putting blocks on photons. If they are observed, nature changes them.
If anything gets to hack BTC, it will hack RSA and cryptography as well, so banks aren’t safe regardless of whether they use BTC or not.
Sorry but you have no clue what you are talking about. 1. SHA256 isn’t the weak link, it’s ecdsa. 2. No one creates a banking transaction over http. And no you don’t need to be ISP to intercept http requests (Learn about man in the middle attack). That’s why we have https which uses asymmetric encryption algorithm to encrypt your data. The encryption algorithm we use for SSL is RSA and it is vulnerable to QC 3. Everything on the internet uses RSA to encrypt requests on the internet. If you don’t, your data will be out in the public for anyone to intercept. 4. No company that is worth a dime is storing password plaintext. And no you don’t need physical access to the db to hack in and get the passwords as proven by countless of hacking incidents in the past.
What banks have rolled out post quantum encryption? Master card and visa still use asymmetric ECDSA and RSA in their EMV chips, all the banks in the world still use TLS for their websites and APPS, what are you talking about.
SHA256 is a hash function not an encryption scheme and is it considered to be post quantum secure. What isn’t post quantum secure is RSA and elliptic curve based cryptography, which is used to do key exchange when you connect to a website. Once key exchange is done the ensuing encryption used is also considered post quantum secure. So in general web2 settings it’s a very small step that needs to be updated and the tools to do so have already been invented. For blockchain it’s going to be much harder and much more cumbersome. bitcoin probably isn’t the worst because it’s mainly just elliptic curve based signatures that are vulnerable. But it’s still an entire decentralized system of nodes that need to update to a new scheme and it should be done in a way that’s backwards compatible with existing keys. This is not to say that it can’t be done but it’s very wrong to pretend that the situation is the same across web2 and web3. It’s a much bigger problem for blockchain, especially any blockchain that leverages zero-knowledge proofs.
SHA256 isn't the problem, quantum computers only have a quadratic advantage on reversing hashes which essentially means instead of about 2^256 steps it would take them 2^128 steps - still a huge amount! The main thing that's an issue is factoring integers to their prime numbers which breaks RSA, which is the most common assymetric encryption. And that is indeed used almost everywhere where you need to communicate securely remotely (e.g. everytime you use a website with https) or everywhere you need to prove identity by some kind of digital signature (that is again used in https when the website proves its identity to you - and of course signing transactions in bitcoin). But we already have encryption schemes that can fill the role of RSA and are thought to be quantum resistant, and they are slowly being adopted in many places. Hopefully the bitcoin network will adopt it too before quantum advantage is reached!
It’s so misinformative. SHA256 is not rREALLY even so well attacked with Grover’s Algorithm AFAIK. So „normal“ quantum computing should have a hard time outclassing it like they can for factorization problems of primes (like RSA) Bad things are about to happen the next 2 years. I am very well pro blockchain. But also I fear they might be some technology coming which completely renders our current materialistic believe system questionable. At the heart of it is Bitcoin because if it’s a energy production capability that by FAAAAAR exceeds the current ones. - prices for energy will change drastically to the downside. Heavy ai and quantum computing energy costs will create a new equilibrium but until then we up for a rough downside correction.
There is no doubt that that the quantum threat is real and based on the the recent publication by Craig Gidney from Google the estimated number of qubits required to break RSA2048 has become 20 times less. [https://quantumzeitgeist.com/million-qubit-quantum-factoring-a-path-to-breaking-rsa-2048-within-a-week-say-googles-craig-gidney/](https://quantumzeitgeist.com/million-qubit-quantum-factoring-a-path-to-breaking-rsa-2048-within-a-week-say-googles-craig-gidney/)
Quantum computing is a field even experts say is very difficult and not well understood so I will defer to them rather then make claims about its capabilities and risks to existing technologies. They write warnings such as this one by paloalto a Nasdaq listed cybersecurity company: The cybersecurity risks posed by quantum computing include: Breaking Asymmetric Encryption: Quantum computers can use algorithms like Shor's to quickly factorize large integers, rendering public-key encryption methods like RSA, ECC, and DH obsolete. [source](https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-quantum-computings-threat-to-cybersecurity#:~:text=The%20cybersecurity%20risks%20posed%20by,%2C%20ECC%2C%20and%20DH%20obsolete.)
there's so much effort in this arena, we don't see it all unless we start hunting. People in this space have their own forums and vehicles of discussion with the odd sparring on X. It's still very much behind-the-scenes because math, time, money - and they speak their own language! I just get riled at these doom-esque type headlines. Highlighting risks is becoming SOP for all prospectuses and regulatory filings and should address how quantum computers could compromise encryption methods like RSA and EC. Blackrock gets so much attention it's not surprising this particular one was picked up on but if he look hard enough, there are probably many which never get this much attention.
Your private key is just 64 letters and numbers strung together. Even if you have your wallet stored safely, if at anytime those 64 characters get out, you can lose your bitcoin. But, nowhere online is your private key ever stored. Your private key is used to do a math equation with a public key that gives a result that’s mathematically impossible to reverse without brute force guess and check. There are some good YouTube videos on RSA encryption that help explain the public key/ private key security.
Not really an issue for crypto here. Nothing was cracked here, they "factored" in a 90 bit RSA integer. Which is impressive, but still a long way from cracking anything small, and an exponentially longer way from cracking anything beyond an RSA, like even the more basic SHA. Not to mention that quantum computing cracking would only work for old Bitcoin addresses. The new system of address makes it simpler to just not use the same public address twice, to make it exponentially more difficult to crack, even by a machine that would be able to crack an address. But even if quantum computing develops at an insanely faster pace than expected, you would still at best be talking about our unborn grand kids having to start worrying about their keys.
Did you read it? US SBR has been approved but hasn't made a single purchase yet (therefore no price action beyond speculation). Definitely excited about US SBR but until it makes a purchase I don't think it will move the needle much. New Hampshire allows for up to 5% of public funds: https://gc.nh.gov/bill\_status/legacy/bs2016/billText.aspx?sy=2025&v=SP&id=707#:\~:text=II.%20%C2%A0Notwithstanding%20RSA,by%20the%20legislature.
Here is the actual text of NH House bill 302. https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB302/id/3228179 It does not mention Bitcoin or any other digital asset by name which is a very good good thing. I does set a minimum market capitalization requirement as follows: > II. Notwithstanding RSA 6:8, the state treasurer may invest a portion of public funds in precious metals and any digital assets with a market capitalization of over $500 billion averaged over the previous calendar year from the general fund, the revenue stabilization fund established in RSA 9:13-e, and any other funds as authorized by the legislature. Currently only Bitcoin meets this requirement, but of course there is no guarantee that in the future Bitcoin will continue to meet this requirement or that Bitcoin will the only digital asset that will meet this requirement. It also begs the question: What would happen if big polar bears get their sharp claws in Bitcoin keeping the market capitalization of Bitcoin below USD 500 Billion for over a year?
tldr; Cryptography pioneer Adi Shamir criticized cryptocurrencies at the RSA Conference, stating the world would be better without them. He argued they fail to achieve decentralization, are used mainly for speculation, and enable malware and financial exploitation. While acknowledging blockchain's potential applications, Shamir contrasted his views with Ed Felten, who likened crypto's current state to the early internet, highlighting its innovative possibilities despite risks. Shamir's cryptographic work underpins many modern security tools, including cryptocurrency wallets. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
You'd be surprised if even 5 people from this entire thread have any Idea what RSA means lmao. These guys don't even work with Risk/Reward.
Yeah but I bought years ago. I mean I’m sitting on 100% or better profit. That said, by your logic I could say that I’m off by 89% from the all time highs but none of that matters until I sell. Worth and actual taken profit are vastly different things. What my crypto is worth right now is less than it was a month ago but far more than it was 8 years ago. I could still lose if I sell when it’s lower than I bought in. I’ve certainly done that many times. Crypto would have to dump to near zero for that to be true, but it certainly could. All it would take was some system to break RSA cryptography and everything that’s not being stored in cash in a literal vault would be worthless.
Social consensus only matters in so much as where the money goes. Ethereum has a higher value than Ethereum Classic because the money in the market at the time followed the Ethereum fork, not EC. If there's a "fork" moment for Bitcoin then 90% of the people can go one way, but if 90% of the money goes the other way then that's where all the value will end up, and where the miners will naturally gravitate. > I mean... USB is definitely not required. There's hardware wallets that operate on QR codes. That's going to be a one way communication channel. Which again if your understanding of computer systems is rudimentary it's easy to overlook. Yes... but the system is still taking in the data from the QR code. You're assuming the QR code or whatever is the signature, or that the signature is somehow magically generated without the system knowing the private key used to generate it. That's not the case. No matter how you store your key, when a transaction is signed that key is going to be on a piece of hardware, and if there is *any way* to get information off of that hardware then the private key can also potentially be gotten off of said hardware. There are proof of concept hacks that use the computer's speakers to exfiltrate data across an air gap at frequencies outside of human hearing. Shit like this is why security professionals say the only secure computer is one that is inaccessible and turned off. This isn't to say that these systems can't be made *more* secure, this is me explaining that "Cold Wallet" keys aren't some magic solution to security that Crypto has and nothing else does... the basic concept here is the same one used in RSA 50 years ago.
From my understand & research that is correct. Even between quantum computing & Ai technologies. Technically It would be "illegal" to hack or steal them. From my understanding even the most advanced technology won't be able to hack due to the hashing sequence. 🤔 The mathamatics involved is unthinkable. The blockchain has I'm not sure how accurate Chat GPT is but ask it yourself. There's at least low-level information available to learn about it. Estimating when SHA-256 might be broken by AI and quantum computers depends on the progress of both fields, especially quantum computing. Here’s an analysis based on current knowledge: 1. Classical Computing and AI Threats AI, even with advanced machine learning models, cannot directly break SHA-256 because it’s based on complex mathematical properties like the avalanche effect (small input changes cause large hash changes). However, AI could help: Identify patterns in hash generation or network vulnerabilities. Optimize the mining process to make it more efficient (but not to break the hashing itself). Therefore, AI alone is unlikely to break SHA-256 anytime soon, if ever. --- 2. Quantum Computing Threats Quantum computers pose a more serious threat because of their ability to solve certain mathematical problems exponentially faster than classical computers: Shor’s Algorithm Shor’s algorithm can theoretically break RSA and ECC encryption by factoring large numbers and solving discrete logarithms efficiently. However, SHA-256 is based on a one-way hashing function (not factoring or discrete logs), so Shor's algorithm cannot directly break SHA-256. Grover’s Algorithm Grover’s algorithm allows quantum computers to search an unsorted database (or invert a hash) in √N time instead of N time. For SHA-256, Grover’s algorithm could reduce the effective security from 256 bits to 128 bits — which is still very strong (AES-128 is considered secure against classical attacks). --- 3. Timeline Estimate Current quantum computers (like those from Google and IBM) have only reached about 1,000 qubits — far below the estimated millions of error-corrected qubits needed to threaten SHA-256 using Grover’s algorithm. Estimates vary, but experts predict that: It could take 15 to 30 years to develop a quantum computer capable of running Grover’s algorithm at a scale that could weaken SHA-256. It may take even longer (if ever) to reduce security to a practically exploitable level, considering the need for fault-tolerant qubits. --- 4. Post-Quantum Cryptography To prepare for this, researchers are working on post-quantum cryptography (PQC), which includes hash-based cryptography that quantum computers are unlikely to break. SHA-256 itself is not currently under immediate threat, but blockchain systems could eventually upgrade to quantum-resistant hashing algorithms (like SHA-3 or lattice-based methods). --- 👉 Conclusion AI is unlikely to break SHA-256 directly. Quantum computers using Grover’s algorithm might weaken SHA-256 to 128-bit security, but this would require millions of qubits and may take 15–30 years (or longer) to become practical. Blockchain systems will likely adopt quantum-resistant algorithms before quantum computing reaches this level.
Bank sector does indeed uses RSA and ECC for encryption and authentication. Shor’s algorithm also threatens these systems, no doubt, by factoring large primes or solving discrete logarithms. However, banks often employ layered security, including symmetric encryption and centralized key management. So my money is a few orders of magnitude safer in traditional banking environments.
Shor's algorithm can crack RSA cryptography (or any other method that relies on the prime factorization of big numbers) there is no cryptography of this kind in the blockchain, which uses elliptic curve cryptography
Quantum computers aren't built to do meaningful tasks (yet)... recent advancements were only for counting random numbers (for example)... you can't computationally do anything to a network RSA or hash with that. I work on the fringes of the deep study in Quantum and most believe true risk to payment system level encryption (like BTC) is 12-20 years away... and odds of it attacking the BTC network within the next 5 years is less than 0.1%
I'm replying to you, rather than brtastic, because while he is technically correct, I feel as though you may benefit more from a more simplistic breakdown (please don't think I'm being condescending, this also helped solidify my knowledge gaps) There are different cryptographic concepts/ techniques which are easily confused because they can be used in different ways: Public Key Cryptography: Is an asymmetric cryptographic system that uses a mathematically linked key pair (public and private keys) PKC has multiple applications beyond just securing data. It can be used for encryption, digital signatures, and key exchange. In encryption, the public key encrypts, and the private key decrypts (used in HTTPS, PGP). In digital signatures, the private key signs data, and the public key verifies authenticity (used in Bitcoin transactions and document signing). Encryption: There are two types of encryption but essentially encryption is the process of making data unreadable/unusable (encrypted) until it can be rendered useable again with a key (unencrypted): Symmetric Encryption: Uses the same key for encryption and decryption. Asymmetric Encryption: Uses a Key Pair, which are essentially mathematically intertwined keys (RSA, ECC) in which the encryption key is different than the decryption key. Hashing: Hashing is a cryptographic process that transforms input data into a fixed-length string (hash) using a mathematical algorithm. It is a one-way function, meaning the original data cannot be reversed from the hash. Even a small change in the input produces a drastically different output. Hashing is used for data integrity verification, password storage, and proof-of-work in Bitcoin mining. Common hashing algorithms include SHA-256 (used in Bitcoin), MD5, and Bcrypt. Unlike encryption, hashing does not require a key and is meant for verification, not secrecy. Hopefully that helps clear some of the concepts up, and explains what brtastic was saying.
Yes, an ASIC-like chip using quantum computing principles could theoretically be developed, but it would be fundamentally different from classical ASICs used in cryptocurrency mining. Here’s how it could work and its potential implications: 1. Quantum ASIC: A Hybrid Approach A Quantum ASIC (QASIC) would combine application-specific design with quantum computing principles to enhance mining efficiency. Instead of relying on classical transistor-based ASIC chips, it would use qubits for specific computations. • Quantum Gates for Hashing: A QASIC could leverage quantum superposition and entanglement to process multiple hash attempts simultaneously, dramatically increasing mining efficiency. • Quantum Parallelism: Unlike classical ASICs, which perform calculations one at a time per chip, quantum-based ASICs could potentially evaluate multiple hashes in parallel. • Optimized for Specific Algorithms: Just like traditional ASICs are designed for Bitcoin’s SHA-256 or Ethereum’s Ethash, a QASIC could be engineered for a specific quantum-resistant hashing function. 2. Potential Benefits of a Quantum ASIC • Exponential Speedup: Quantum computers leverage Shor’s Algorithm (for breaking RSA encryption) and Grover’s Algorithm (for speeding up search problems). If a mining process can be optimized using quantum search, it could provide a quadratic or even exponential speedup in hash solving. • Energy Efficiency: Quantum chips do not generate heat in the same way as classical silicon chips. A quantum ASIC could require far less energy than current mining rigs. • Superior Adaptability: A programmable quantum ASIC could be adapted for multiple cryptographic functions, making it more resistant to obsolescence than classical ASICs. 3. Challenges of Quantum ASICs Despite the potential advantages, several hurdles must be overcome: A. Quantum Error Correction • Qubits are extremely sensitive to noise and decoherence. • Current error correction methods require hundreds to thousands of physical qubits per logical qubit, making practical mining implementation difficult. B. Quantum-Resistant Hashing • If quantum ASICs become viable, blockchain protocols may need to switch to quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms (e.g., Lattice-based cryptography, hash-based cryptography). • A quantum ASIC might not necessarily outperform a classical ASIC if the mining algorithm is designed to be quantum-resistant. C. Hardware Development & Cost • Current quantum computing hardware is bulky, expensive, and requires cryogenic cooling (except for photonic quantum computing, which is still in early stages). • The cost of developing a quantum ASIC would be extremely high, making it unfeasible for mainstream mining—at least in the near term. 4. Feasibility Timeline • Short-Term (0-5 years): Classical ASICs will dominate, but early-stage hybrid quantum-classical mining research might emerge. • Mid-Term (5-15 years): Quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms could be widely implemented, and small-scale quantum accelerators may assist in classical mining. • Long-Term (15+ years): If quantum error correction and scalability improve, dedicated quantum ASIC miners could challenge classical ASIC dominance. 5. Application to Your Digital Asset Model Given your interest in quantum-secured digital assets, a quantum ASIC mining mechanism could fit well within your system. Here’s how: • The randomized hashing algorithm you envision could be adapted for a quantum mining system. • Quantum chips could enhance security while keeping mining decentralized by preventing early monopolization. • The introduction of quantum-enhanced mining difficulty adjustments could create a fairer playing field. Would you want to explore specific quantum-resistant cryptographic methods that could integrate with your model?