RSA
The Republic of South Africa
Mentions (24Hr)
0.00% Today
Reddit Posts
Mentions
It IS safe from quantum computers. I understand that you are trying to say that since we don’t yet have a powerful enough quantum computer and that such a computer has not attempted and failed an attack, that I can’t claim that it is safe. What you are missing, is that an algorithm exists that can be used to break RSA and ECC. It is called Shor’s algorithm. You could even run it on a classical computer, but it would take eons to break the encryption. There are no known algorithms that can break post quantum encryption such as XMSS, SPHINCS+, Dilithium, Kyber. To put differently, these are mathematical problems. We know how to solve RSA and ECC, but it would take classical computers a very long time to do it. For post quantum encryption “math problems”, we don’t have a known way to solve them!
That’s just false. NIST has released the first finalized post-quantum encryption standards to protect against quantum computer threats. These guidelines focus on algorithms resistant to attacks like Shor’s, which could break traditional RSA and ECC encryption. The primary standards are FIPS 203 (ML-KEM for general encryption), FIPS 204 (ML-DSA for digital signatures), and FIPS 205 (SLH-DSA as a hash-based backup). NIST urges immediate transitions for systems like TLS, VPNs, and email, with full migration targeted by 2035. These lattice- and hash-based algorithms offer strong security for key exchange and signatures without hardware changes. Crypto however…
What are you talking about gifting to corps? Personal responsibility means making sure your money is safe. Bitcoin is technology and the most stable tech of its kind - ie. bitcoin held on an address from 2009 can still be spent today with the same core software. But tech and encryption standards change - if you can’t keep up with necessary changes once in 20 years to safeguard your money, then how is that personal responsibility? Since you’re having a tantrum please explain what you think should happen if quantum evolves enough to crack RSA encryption and make it a race game to spend bitcoin sitting on non hashed public keys? Try to stay calm and use big boy words.
NIST has released the first finalized post-quantum encryption standards to protect against quantum computer threats. These guidelines focus on algorithms resistant to attacks like Shor’s, which could break traditional RSA and ECC encryption. The primary standards are FIPS 203 (ML-KEM for general encryption), FIPS 204 (ML-DSA for digital signatures), and FIPS 205 (SLH-DSA as a hash-based backup). NIST urges immediate transitions for systems like TLS, VPNs, and email, with full migration targeted by 2035. These lattice- and hash-based algorithms offer strong security for key exchange and signatures without hardware changes. Crypto however…
I take it as the highest compliment to be told those in big finance wouldn’t want me making decisions. Is there a group more distrusted and corrupt in modern times? Also: “Leaving bitcoin unsecured.” I have never said that. You don’t understand - you’re a version of the meme sketch [The Expert](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg) which I’m guessing if you’ve seen it, you did not find funny. Please tell me what you propose. Hopefully it is not to have seven parallel red lines be drawn as perpendicular green lines. There is no possible solution that I think you want which is somehow allow owners who have lost their keys to retain ownership if RSA is cracked. There is no way for anyone who has lost keys to PROVE ownership. So the only question is whether the consensus decides to enforce that bitcoin on so-called vulnerable addresses be locked away forever or redistributed via a similar lottery to how bitcoin is mined in the first place (ie. those with computational power compete to get it). This is not foundational loss of security. And if the market believed it was then bitcoin and all crypto would already be at zero value. Look, if the keys to old coins are lost then the original owner no longer has custody either. So instead they get redistributed. If the keys are not lost, then yes, the owner has invested in something reliant on technology and is leaving the keys to the safe in the open. Bitcoin was founded as “be your own bank” - personal responsibility for self-custody. If you’re not doing the due diligence to upkeep with the tech (once in 15 years doesn’t seem such a stretch does it?) then it’s no different than burying physical treasure and not keeping a handle on if the location has remained secure. I don’t know how to be more clear: the ONLY exposure to these purely theoretical quantum breakthroughs are 1) some unknown percentage of coins from pre-2012 (P2PK) and 2) coins sitting on spent addresses. Everything else is quantum secure doing nothing at all. It is not unreasonable to assume the former are lost if they haven’t been moved by now - P2PK has been deprecated for 15 years. The coins on spent addresses are utilizing documented bad security practice that was discouraged since bitcoin’s inception. Using bad security is not uncovering a foundational flaw - the marvel here is that the bad behavior has still been 100% secure to this day until theoretical quantum advances prove otherwise.
It’s even worse than I thought. Here’s the article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95973-w I thought they actually factored 21 back in that study, turns out they technically kinda didn’t. They’re essentially setting up a circuit to factor a number they already know the answer to. Even though it’s a proof of concept, it is orders of magnitude away from being able to break encryption as it would have to be able to factor a number with hundreds of digits. To break RSA-2048 encryption, it would have to factor a 617 digit number. Since we can’t even factor 21 without basically giving the quantum system the answer, I think we’re pretty damn safe and it’s a non-threat.
Of course it can. You know it can happen now, right? So there’s that already known risk. Then if it actually becomes viable, we have years of lead time. It won’t be overnight, “oh shit, RSA encryption just fell!” Then if steadily old coins start falling to dedicated quantum machines attacking keys, there are still only 21m total. They don’t suddenly ALL get sold because they’re still finite. Current owners will be vying for them as much as those with none.
> for national security there is walled gardens and multiple layers of intranet, which makes packet sniffing impossible from an outside attackers perspective. Not everything that nations-states are interested is behind intranets that are vulnerable and we know from snowden leaks that the government is doing mass data collection using xkeyscore for at least 30 days, For long-term (HNDL) NIST, CISA, and NSA have warned that HNDL is a real threat https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography > A successful post-quantum cryptography migration will take time to plan and conduct. CISA, NSA, and NIST urge organizations to begin preparing now by creating quantum-readiness roadmaps, conducting inventories, applying risk assessments and analysis, and engaging vendors. Early planning is necessary as cyber threat actors could be targeting data today that would still require protection in the future (or in other words, has a long secrecy lifetime), using a catch now, break later or harvest now, decrypt later operation. Many of the cryptographic products, protocols, and services used today that rely on public key algorithms (e.g., Rivest- Shamir-Adleman [RSA], Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman [ECDH], and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm [ECDSA]) I really don't see this as a level as an alien conspiracy if there's actual evidence showing governments have been tapping data sources for years.
Holy fuck dude was I attacking you? Why on earth did you feel the need to comment like an unmitigated asshole? I didn’t claim current quantum computers posed a present day threat. It’s well understood that there plenty of legacy algorithms like RSA are at imminent or future risk. Jesus Christ you’re insufferable.
Aes256 and xchacha20 are symmetric ciphers for encrypting/decrypting keys ECC and RSA are asymmetric ciphers used with PKI used to encrypt SSL traffic Different purpose. They can't be used interchangeably.
Your second paragraph is what would happen if RSA-2048 was being replaced with something similarly static but it's not, post quantum cryptography is designed to be agile & the problems that need to be solved are disparate layers, so the minute somebody's like "we're 1% of the way towards beating this PQC method with a hyperscale datacenter built from top 1% of 1% stable qubit processors" just one layer out of the multiple layers can be swapped in at a moment's notice, now the attacker has to restart from square 1 after spending billions just to get 1% of the way the first time. The same will happen again when they restart & get it 1% of the way for the new suite of problems to solve. It's a problem being solved by being so cost-prohibitive that it would cost hundreds of billions to trillions to solve *just for the first attempt* if the cryptography remained static, it's doomed to fail by a near zero cost pushing of an update to one of the layers.
So much fuckry here. First of all the article takes the 2029 date and presents it as when Google expect to have a quantum computer that can break keys. But rather that’s when they want to have moved to post-quantum ciphers, to prevent store-and-decrypt-later attacks many many years after that. Secondly don’t trust google on all this. They are a reputable org of course, but they’ve spent billions on quantum. It’s very much in their interest to hype it up. Remember the largest RSA key anyone has broken with Shor’s algorithm so far is 22-bits. Getting to real-world key sizes from there is not even something we can be sure will happen, let alone when. https://postquantum.com/post-quantum/no-broken-rsa-2048-4096/#3-the-quantum-reality-shors-algorithm-is-real-but-the-machine-it-needs-doesnt-exist Bitcoin and crypto has major structural issues if it does come about. But for once guys maybe don’t swallow every bit of hype.
Breaking sha256 is not really what is protecting your Bitcoin wallet, it is the algorithm used to "mine" Bitcoin and run the network. In theory they could use any algorithm that is one way and takes time to compute in reverse. What might actually steal your Bitcoin is if someone bruke asymetric key encryption, RSA and Elliptic Curve multiplication. These are the ones that secure your wallet, and are at risk of being "broken" by quantum computers. But as the other person said: if that happens Bitcoin would be the least of your problems.
Also the Pegasus and possibly RSA backdoor
Key Details on Quantum Factoring Records: 15: Factored in 2001 by IBM using Shor's algorithm. 21: Factored in 2012 by a team using NMR, generally recognized as the largest true Shor's algorithm record, though it used a "compiled" form that knew the answer beforehand. 143: Factored in 2012 via adiabatic (annealing) techniques, but not considered general-purpose Shor's factoring. Limitations: Factoring larger numbers requires high-fidelity qubits and extensive error correction to handle the exponential increase in quantum gates required, causing the record to stagnate for years. Claims that quantum computers have broken large, real-world RSA keys are often misleading, as they usually involve specially engineered cases, such as "pre-compiling" known answers into the algorithm.
I don’t think we’re at the point where quantum machines can just break Bitcoin’s encryption tomorrow. Right now, it’s still theoretical for most public blockchains. However, quantum computing is catching up with classical cryptography limits, which means threats to widely used public key schemes like RSA and ECC are gradually increasing, and people can see that within the next 5 - 10 years, the requirement for quantum-resistant solutions in blockchains and critical infrastructure will become more urgent. I skimmed a bit through PQC, and one of the quantum-resistant blockchains that stands out is [https://armchain.org/](https://armchain.org/) which is not only EVM-compatible but is also planning upgrades that will be fully post-PQC friendly.
While the odds favor your confidence, I saw this post in how things have progressed QC requirements to break ECC/RSA: - 2019: 20 million physical qubits - 2022: 13 million physical qubits - May 2025: < 1 million physical qubits - January 2026: 370,000 physical qubits - February 2026: < 100,000 physical qubits Current QC roadmap qubit targets: - IonQ (2030) - 2,000,000 - PsiQuantum (2027-2029) - 1,000,000 - Google Quantum AI (2029) - 1,000,000 - IBM (2033) - 100,000 - OQC (2034) - 1,000,000 Seems things are converging
I don’t think we’re at the point where quantum machines can just break Bitcoin’s encryption tomorrow. Right now, it’s still theoretical for most public blockchains. However, quantum computing is catching up with classical cryptography limits, which means threats to widely used public key schemes like RSA and ECC are gradually increasing, and people can see that within the next 5 - 10 years, the requirement for quantum-resistant solutions in blockchains and critical infrastructure will become more urgent.
RSA/ECC is used in https, upgrading https would save, what other vectors do you have to enter the network? SSH, that will be upgraded too, is already upgraded if you wanna, with an option you can activate quantum safe. You can upgrade any vectors of attack in one weekend, and no the stock won't crash, how was for gdpr, every company announced that will do changes to be safe and grew they stoock, same will be for quantuam, all will announce they are shutting preemptively down for safety to upgrade and people will approve.
Upgrading HTTPS won't save you from Shor's algorithm. If a quantum computer can factor large integers, your current RSA/ECC encryption is mathematically broken at its core. You can’t just 'patch' the transport layer when the underlying math is compromised. Also, telling the market you’re shutting down the bank for a few days to fix an existential security flaw would crash your stock, not raise it. Stay in the front office, the IT basement is clearly not your place
Upgrade global banking infrastructure and encryption in one weekend? Lol. Most banks are still running on COBOL from the 70s and take three days to process a simple wire transfer. Good luck 'patching' RSA encryption before a quantum computer drains the vault
Quantum Computing: The Ultimate Vanity Project of the 21st Century For over a decade, quantum computing has been paraded as the next technological revolution — a mythical silver bullet that will unlock untold computational power, revolutionize industries, and redefine modern life. The reality? It remains little more than a scientific vanity project, a multibillion-dollar chase after a theoretical construct that, even if made functional, has limited real-world application beyond breaking encryption and generating fancy random numbers. At the heart of the issue is quantum decoherence — the tendency of quantum states to collapse into classical noise the moment they interact with their environment. This isn’t a minor bug. It's a foundational barrier. The very fabric of quantum computing is based on maintaining fragile quantum superpositions long enough to perform calculations. And yet, decades into development, we still don’t have a full grasp of decoherence, let alone a scalable way to beat it. Trying to build a machine that leverages quantum behavior while failing to tame decoherence is like trying to build a jet engine without understanding gravity . Even if these machines reach so-called "quantum advantage," their application domain is razor thin. Outside of specialized optimization problems or theoretical chemistry simulations, most problems tackled by quantum machines are either contrived or better solved using classical approaches. The promise of quantum AI or instant protein folding is, for now, mostly vapor. And let’s address the big one: cryptography. Yes, quantum computers could break widely used encryption standards like RSA or ECC — if they were large and stable enough. But this is precisely why quantum-secure cryptography and blockchains are already in development. In fact, quantum-resistant blockchain protocols can dynamically adjust difficulty levels and cryptographic standards, making them arguably the most secure data networks ever conceived. If quantum computing's killer app is cracking crypto, but crypto already knows how to defend itself — what, then, is left? Meanwhile, China isn’t Buying the Hype — They’re Building Reality Contrast this with China's approach. The Chinese leadership sees quantum computing for what it is: mostly smoke and mirrors, not a route to near-term strategic supremacy. Instead of funneling billions into increasingly exotic quantum architectures with no practical use, they’re focusing on tangible, scalable infrastructure: the Digital Yuan, photonic quantum communication, and catching up — fast — in extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography. While Western institutions obsess over qubit counts and hypothetical supremacy milestones, China is busy industrializing. Their light lithography sector — once an afterthought — is fast approaching ASML-level capabilities, with domestic EUV platforms based on alternative plasma generation methods. Their Digital Yuan project, meanwhile, is already being tested in real cities, integrated with real payment systems, and designed to sidestep Western-controlled financial networks. And if they're still investing in quantum, it’s with a laser focus on quantum communication and photonic networks — not universal quantum computers. They’re using quantum for what it's good at: secure transmission, not hypothetical simulation. The West’s Quantum Fetish is an Economic Drain Quantum computing has become the darling of tech investors, governments, and universities not because of its utility, but because of its mystique. It's the perfect buzzword cocktail: inscrutable physics, impossible promises, and the illusion of strategic inevitability. It's science fiction masquerading as inevitability. It sucks oxygen and funding away from more grounded, impactful innovation — like energy tech, edge AI, chipmaking, and secure digital infrastructure. In short, quantum computers are a dream pursued for prestige, not pragmatism. They are the technological equivalent of a luxury supercar that can’t drive uphill and breaks down every ten miles — but looks beautiful parked in a press release. Final Word If the goal is national security, data privacy, energy resilience, or industrial competitiveness, quantum computing is not the answer — it’s a distraction. The real battle is being fought with semiconductors, cryptographic infrastructure, and digital currencies. And on that front, the Chinese are playing chess while the West fiddles with Schrödinger’s calculator.
Quantum Computing threat is more existential for banks and legacy systems than for Bitcoin. Traditional banking relies on centralized, slow-to-update RSA/ECC encryption. Bitcoin, being open-source, can undergo "soft forks" to implement Quantum-Resistant signatures. Furthermore, its hashing algorithm (SHA-256) is naturally more resilient to quantum attacks than public-key encryption.
Post is by: One-Asparagus-319 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1qt84rw/bitcoin_v001_alpha_if_you_could_go_back_to_2009/ The README file for Bitcoin version v0.01 ALPHA, released by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009. It's surreal to read these lines knowing what this code has become: Bitcoin v0.01 ALPHA Copyright (c) 2009 Satoshi Nakamoto. Distributed under the MIT/X11 software license. See the license.txt file or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php. This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/). This product includes cryptographic software written by Eric Young (eay@cryptsoft.com). Supported Compilers \------------------- MinGW GCC (v3.4.5) Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 SP6 Dependencies \------------ Libraries you need to obtain separately to compile: Default download path wxWidgets \\wxWidgets [http://www.wxwidgets.org/downloads/](http://www.wxwidgets.org/downloads/) OpenSSL \\OpenSSL [http://www.openssl.org/source/](http://www.openssl.org/source/) Berkeley DB \\DB [http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/index.html](http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/index.html) Boost \\Boost [http://www.boost.org/users/download/](http://www.boost.org/users/download/) Their licenses: wxWidgets LGPL 2.1 with very liberal exceptions OpenSSL Old BSD license with the problematic advertising requirement Berkeley DB New BSD license with the additional requirement that the linked software be open source Free Boost License similar to MIT OpenSSL \------- Bitcoin does not use any cryptography. If you want to do a full build of OpenSSL to exclude the cryptographic routines, some patches are needed. (OpenSSL v0.9.8h) Edit engines\\e\_gmp.c and put this #ifndef around #include <openssl/rsa.h> \#ifndef OPENSSL\_NO\_RSA \#include <openssl/rsa.h> \#endif Add this to crypto\\err\\err\_all.c before the line ERR\_load\_crypto\_strings: void ERR\_load\_RSA\_strings(void) { } Edit ms\\mingw32.bat and replace the parameters in the Configure line with this list that excludes everything. You need to put this in the batch file because batch files cannot handle more than 9 parameters. perl Configure mingw threads no-rc2 no-rc4 no-rc5 no-idea no-des no-bf no-cast no-aes no-camellia no-seed no-rsa no-dh Also remove the following line in ms\\mingw32.bat. The compilation fails after it has already finished compiling libeay32, which is all we are interested in, but the failure interrupts the script before it executes dllwrap to generate libeay32.dll. REM if errorlevel 1 goto end Build ms\\mingw32.bat If you want to use it with MSVC, generate the .lib file lib /machine:i386 /def:ms\\libeay32.def /out:out\\libeay32.lib Berkeley DB \----------- MinGW with MSYS: cd \\DB\\build\_unix sh ../dist/configure --enable-mingw --enable-cxx make Boost \----- You may need Boost version 1.35 to compile with MSVC 6.0. I couldn't compile version 1.37 with MSVC 6.0. Here, Satoshi lists the supported compilers (MinGW GCC 3.4.5, Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 SP6) and manual dependencies: wxWidgets, OpenSSL, Berkeley DB, Boost. He even gives instructions for removing encryption from OpenSSL, because "Bitcoin doesn't use any cryptography"—only hashing and proof-of-work. It's an open-source, minimalist, almost handcrafted project. No pretty GUI, no exchange, no ETF, nothing "To the moon." Just an idea, a whitepaper, and a .txt file explaining how to compile. Did anyone here attempt to compile this version in 2009 for various study purposes? Or even today? What were the biggest challenges? Ironically, Satoshi says, "Bitcoin doesn't use any cryptography." Today, how much of the discussion about BTC is about technology, and how much is about speculation? People celebrate having 1 BTC as a life milestone. In 2009, you could have mined hundreds with a regular PC. What changed? Us? Or the dream? \*“Distributed under the MIT/X11 license.”\* Perhaps the license was free, but the freedom to understand the historical moment was not. Here's an excerpt from the code of version 0.01 for reflection (genesis block): “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks” It seems that Satoshi was already writing not just code, but a manifesto. *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.*
You don’t need a quantum computer to run quantum resistant cryptography. Quantum computing allows certain operations use by many cryptographic algorithms to be solved quickly, like big integer factorization (RSA) or the discrete logarithm problem in elliptic curves (ECDSA), but there are algorithms that don’t use those, so a QC doesn’t have an advantage compared to a regular computer. Dilithium is one those
Lot of my so called tech bros seem to be in disagreement. I won't waste much my energy between explaining theoretical, practical and industrial aspect of tech. Anyway, look at your top site bookmarks and see what TLS certs they are using.. Try to understand, how actually TLS works and how it combine both asymmetric & symmetric cryptography and how often the keys are changed (symmetric keys) then you will know breaking real life application still bit far away as compare to breaking under lab environment. Regardless, as I mentioned already there will be far more severe consequences rather than some crypto get cracked. Crypto will be the least of worries. Why not ask Reddit itself stop using RSA with 256 SHA 😉
I happen to work at large company/centralize org. If something's is easier to change does not mean it will done. Hence my point, trust me crypto will be last problem on day 0 of RSA & EC.
If RSA or EC is broken anytime soon within practical time complexity, crypto would be the last problem. Trust me!!!
they have about 30 years to upgrade unless a major breakthrough arrives. |Expert / Study|Estimated Timeline|Notes| |:-|:-|:-| |NSA (2023)|15–25 years|For large-scale quantum attacks on RSA/ECC| |:-|:-|:-| |NIST / PQC Advisory|10–20 years|Advocating post-quantum cryptography now| |:-|:-|:-| |IBM / Google Research|20+ years|Practical, error-corrected quantum machines| |:-|:-|:-| |Cryptocurrency-focused estimates|20–30 years|Safe window for Bitcoin if no sudden breakthroughs| |:-|:-|:-|
Quantum timeline estimates btc has 30 years left to upgrade: |Expert / Study|Estimated Timeline|Notes| |:-|:-|:-| |NSA (2023)|15–25 years|For large-scale quantum attacks on RSA/ECC| |:-|:-|:-| |NIST / PQC Advisory|10–20 years|Advocating post-quantum cryptography now| |:-|:-|:-| |IBM / Google Research|20+ years|Practical, error-corrected quantum machines| |:-|:-|:-| |Cryptocurrency-focused estimates|20–30 years|Safe window for Bitcoin if no sudden breakthroughs| |:-|:-|:-|
I think this quantum threat applies to a lot more critical places the blockchain. Think classic financial systems i.e. wire transfers, credit card processing.. etc. not saying that it’s not a threat to cryptocurrencies and the industry but if quantum computers can decrypt public-key cryptography aka RSA and elliptical curves.. almost all industries are under threat. not seeing people warn those industries as much as they warn blockchain huh
Unfortunately this isn't about sha-256. That's already considered quantum safe. The issue is with the RSA and ECDSA algorithms. And the reality is virtually every secure thing we use today WAS vulnerable. Some organizations are transitioning to new quantum safe algorithms already and as quantum computing makes more progress it will ramp up pressure.for more organizations and systems to convert. There will unfortunately be a last minute rush by a few surprisingly large companies and probably a few won't make it and will get caught with their pants down. But it would be really good if Bitcoin wasn't on of them
Every single time this topic is mentioned, you will see the same short-sighted arguments. 1. There is NOT an immediate risk. Your bags are safe, but changes are needed to keep it that way. 2. The incoming risk is becoming more apparent- the timelines are highly debated. The Google Willow news sparked concerns of how fast that might occur. The timing is no longer worth debating- these advancements are going to continue to be published and people will demand safeguards. 3. Yes, it affects all systems, not just crypto. Hence, not a crypto narrative. 4. This incoming risk moved slow, and it seemed it may never be a concern. That has changed. 5. Thankfully, there has been extensive work to create cryptography that can withstand the capabilities of quantum computing. 6. No, this isn't a Super Computer that runs everything exponentially faster. Instead, it is capable of running certain algorithms exponentially faster. This is why Shor and potentially more advanced algos will be able to break today's digital signatures. 7. No, this is not about SHA-256. It is about RSA and ECDSA. These are the digital signatures that allow you to authorize transactions with your wallet or private key. Updating these is not a simple fork, it won't be backward compatible, and may cause extensive downtime to transition. 8. Not all keys are exposed- generally it is any that had an outgoing transaction or the Satoshi era wallets that used a weaker form of encryption. 9. There is a lot of exposure which would be a problem. and the concern is that could escalate a massive sell-off. 10. The systems we think would be more likely targeted are already working on upgrading. The ones that don't upgrade will become the targets. 11. There will be cloud capabilities, which would allow low level actors to break into wallets. Crypto does not have any way to prove if they were the rightful owners, and of course we know people find ways to move the funds through mixers. This makes it a very vulnerable target. TLDR- there no longer are solid arguments for not working on a solution. This is not doomsday, it requires thoughtful solutions, and making the tough choices to move forward.
Yes. In reality no one cares about BTC once QC hits the capability to crack sha256 / RSA. The entire world would be on fire if that would happen unprepared..however we already are prepared and only the crypto idiots fall for it from time to time. Just fear mongering and possibly attempt of market and/or sentiment manipulation
PGP is partially at risk because of quantum computing. The components that are based on RSA, DSA, Ecdsa or EdDSA are vulnerable to quantum computers. Any public-private key based on these algorithms will be broken by QC. I see you are part of the WHATABOUTISM herd. The telcos, banks, etc are aware of these risks and implementing post-quantum security measures. You should worry instead about BTC, Ethereum and countless of cryptos relying on ECC. https://preview.redd.it/9bxczlph3y7g1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3ad009bb14c98ecef2c149fde0b4355fc7dfc9d5
I have a PhD in Computer Science, which touches both fields. And no, these are not completely separate fields of study. How do you think they came up with post-quantum cryptography if they didn't understand quantum computing? How did they come up with a quantum algorithm to break RSA if they didn't understand cryptography?
yes, true, but the ellipitic curve cryptography can be broke with Shor's algorithm as well. It is not "more" quantum-proof than RSA. And yes, bitcoin uses hashes, but when you send bitcoin, you need to publish your public key. so while your transaction sits in mempool, it is vunerable to QC. and also, there are lots of coins in legacy P2PK addresses which are vunerable already today (e.g., satohsi's coins). Also, Taproot addresses are vunerable to QC. >Guess why the entire computing power in the entire world has never been able to crack Satoshi's wallet, that would have made any country, any Saudi Prince, or any computer wizard much richer. Because public key cryptography cannot be broken with current tech. that's why. not because bitcoin uses some advanced encryption.
Actually, Bitcoin doesn't use RSA that many public key system use, it uses ellipitic curve cryptography. Signature and ownership is based on secp256k1 curve. And keep in mind that unlike the classic public key system, Bitcoin uses a hash function protected by SHA-256, for most of its security, rather than rely on just a public key system. In fact it doesn't have to rely on that for any of its consensus system. Guess why the entire computing power in the entire world has never been able to crack Satoshi's wallet, that would have made any country, any Saudi Prince, or any computer wizard much richer. And why QC will probably break social security, banking, WallStreet, etc...before coming close to cracking a wallet.
Any time now! > “IBM researchers make another advance in quantum computing, demonstrating ‘Shor’s Algorithm,’ which can break large encryption codes.” > “It was that algorithm, and the promise it holds for its ability to break large encryption codes, that spurred interest in quantum computing in the 1990s.” **(2001)** > https://www.wired.com/2001/12/big-blue-takes-quantum-step/ | Year | Largest universal quantum computer | What it could do | Crypto threat? | Source | |------|------------------------------------|------------------|----------------|--------| | 2001 | 7 qubits (IBM NMR machine) | Factored 15 (toy demo) | ❌ No | https://www.wired.com/2001/12/big-blue-takes-quantum-step/ | | 2015 | ~5–10 gate-model qubits (typical academic/industry machines at that time) | Only toy demonstrations; conceptual discussion of quantum risk | ❌ No | https://www.wired.com/2015/09/tricky-encryption-stump-quantum-computers/ | | 2024–2025 | ~105 physical qubits (Google Willow chip) | Early error-correction research; not capable of breaking crypto | ❌ Still cannot even dream of breaking RSA/ECC | https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/12/24319879/google-willow-cant-break-rsa-cryptography | > “…Yesterday, we published a preprint demonstrating that 2048-bit RSA encryption could **theoretically be broken by a quantum computer with 1 million noisy qubits** running for one week.” - Google Online Security Blog. Google researchers Craig Gidney and Sophie Schmieg on May 23, 2025. It explicitly states the 1 million noisy qubits figure for a theoretical break of 2048-bit RSA under certain assumptions. https://security.googleblog.com/2025/05/tracking-cost-of-quantum-factori.html
And just to scare you: what if someone out there secretly cracked RSA?
ECDSA requires fewer qubits to break than RSA, because the key sizes are much smaller. It will fall first, actually. How do you not know that and still think your opinion means anything in this discussion?
Yeah, that's what I mean. Noisy qubits won't do anything with Bitcoins encryption. RSA is a joke in comparison. If they need 10 years for RSA, they won't even live to see ECC open public keys reverse engineered.
I don't really care what you think, I care what the people actually developing the systems and algorithms think. Algorithms and estimates keep getting better. The most recent advancement requires only around a million noisy qubits to break RSA. [https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15917](https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15917) Actual experts are putting it at 10-15 years, not 50.
No, AES is not broken by quantum computers. Only RSA and ECC.
According to the SEC's robust document on the subject matter they have it at a 79% chance of breaking RSA 2048 by 2044.
IBM, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon all have real, functional, quantum computers. IBM just used one of its quantum processors to generate a 34% speed increase in a bond trading algorithm over competing classical computers. That was in a system with WAY fewer qubits than what Google has been able to achieve. And unless you think The Guardian publishes fluff papers, or that peered reviewed scientific journals are not a legitimate source of information, the you can read all about the latest achievements of Google’s quantum system here : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/22/google-hails-breakthrough-as-quantum-computer-surpasses-ability-of-supercomputers Sure, these are specific algorithms. Just like Shors algorithm is one specific algorithm. 10 years MAX before RSA is being cracked commercially, likely far less before we see governments cracking it, due to the absolutely massive value and power that would give to an intelligence agency. But if you want to snuggle into your copium safety blanket and tell yourself that ECC is safe and that bitcoin is a future, then by all means.
They just dont have the computing power yet. They’re well on their way, but for reference Google Willow has processing of 105 qubits. To break traditional RSA (shor algorithm) you need approximately 2600 qubits. To break grover (primary threat to bitcoin), you need somewhere north of 6600 logical qubits.
This keeps getting randomly brought up and everytime it’s pointed out that if QC breaks RSA we have much bigger problems then bitcoin.
False. And RSA has nothing to do with what happens with each different project. Bitcoin uses ECDSA.
There is no technology. RSA was created in the 1970s.
No one is arguing that the messages get sent quickly - SWIFT is primarily a messaging network. But it's NOT A SETTLEMENT SYSTEM. When you send money internationally, SWIFT only sends the message; the actual transfer occurs through correspondent banks, often taking 2–5 business days. Crypto enable p2p settlement without intermediaries, no matter the time or what day of the week it is. SWIFT won't be rendered obsolete because of latency limitations on SWIFTNet, or SWIFT FIN, or InterAct, or FileAct. It will be rendered obsolete in the same way high street travel agents were, and video rental stores, and print news papers and magazines. It will be rendered obsolete because Blockchain presents a superior proposition from the perspective of convenience. It will also be forced to go in the not so distant future as there's no extensibility built into it's systems and protocols, and therefore it will be rendered completely useless once quantum computers running Shor’s algorithm break it's RSA-2048 or it's ECC; this will occur in minutes once the computers reach sufficient qubit stability and scale. Keeta Network is extensible to support additional cryptographic algorithms and can be migrated to fully support post-quantum cryptography (PQC), including deprecating all algorithms which are not post-quantum cryptography. Ultimately, none of us know what will happen in the future. Everything at this point is just potential. But if you ACTUALLY READ THE WHITEPAPERS, you'll see that Keeta has that in heaps.
Great question. The potential of quantum computing to undermine current cryptographic systems is not just a sci-fi idea; it poses a real risk to blockchains that depend on ECC, RSA, and others. I’ve researched more than just the well-known companies like IonQ and Rigetti. An interesting example is Quantum eMotion (QNC / QNCCF). They’re positioning themselves not as a computing company but as part of the security infrastructure for the quantum age, especially through quantum random number generation (QRNG) and encryption hardware and software integrations. What stood out to me is how the “security aspect” might be overlooked in these conversations. Everyone focuses on who makes the fastest qubit, but if quantum computers emerge without secure cryptography, we could face a disaster. Projects like QeM illustrate that the ecosystem needs to grow in several areas: compute, communication, encryption, and trust. Personally, I view the quantum field as a competition across the board computation and defenses. I’m maintaining a broad investment in the sector (crypto and quantum) while avoiding heavy concentration on any single bet.
Super doubtful on this. Next time ask him how close he is to RSA2048 or AES256 being hacked. BTC ECDSA is more robust vs quantum attacks than RSA right now, and yet nobody sees the tech space having full blown meltdowns their WAN infrastructure could be vulnerable to Shor's algorithim in the next two years. I also have buds at Okta and PA and the focus is AI as a spearphishing or penetration tools, not quantum blowing through public certificates like a child vs godzilla. When banks and places like Amazon and Paypal are crowing about being quantum ready because actual standards exist and tech companies are shilling it as part of their WAN IDS systems that's when people should take it seriously.
Gotcha. Mixed up SHA-xxx with RSA and asymetrical procedures (which SHA is not)
A lot of their technology relies on public key crypto in different forms. Elliptic curves is a very common cryptographic tool. And so is RSA. Both of which are not quantum safe. But they are in a much better position to adapt to new cryptographic methods compared to Bitcoin.
He says: RSA-2048 and ECC-256 will be compromised in the next few years.
Did you read the report page? It's just a graph of current availability (increasing) and requirements to break RSA (decreasing) of Physical QBits from 2012-25. There are multiple technologies addressing this and AI does not seem likely to slow the timeline.
[https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-year-of-quantum-from-concept-to-reality-in-2025#/](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-year-of-quantum-from-concept-to-reality-in-2025#/) \^ Page 66 of McKinsey's 2025 Quantum Report PDF (free download with account) chart has projection of 2027 - 2036 for when QCs will break RSA 2048.
NIST put out guidelines a while ago stating PQC migration should start now. RSA and ECDSA will be deprecated by 2030, and disallowed after 2035.
Some things are currently known to be vulnerable. Particularly RSA and ECC, which work on mathematical principles. Some trad fi relies on such algorithms, but it's entirely possible to build a system which doesn't.
\> When industry standard QR cryptographic primitives are published, networks will update to those primitives. They were already published a year ago - [https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/08/nist-releases-first-3-finalized-post-quantum-encryption-standards](https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/08/nist-releases-first-3-finalized-post-quantum-encryption-standards) Additionally, RSA, ECDSA, EdDSA, DH and ECDH will be officially deprecated by 2030 and disallowed after 2035.
tldr; The article highlights the looming threat of quantum computing to stablecoins and decentralized finance (DeFi). Current cryptographic systems like RSA and elliptic curves could be broken by quantum computers, exposing billions in assets to theft. Experts predict quantum machines capable of such attacks may emerge within a decade. To mitigate risks, stablecoins must adopt quantum-safe cryptography and crypto-agility for seamless upgrades. Regulatory frameworks, such as the GENIUS Act, are evolving to mandate quantum resilience, making preparedness essential for stability and compliance. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
If a viable quantum computer emerges, it could theoretically steal funds by breaking ECDSA signatures, especially for reused or exposed addresses. However, Bitcoin could migrate to post-quantum algorithms (like those based on lattices or codes), but this would require a hard fork and a global transition. banks and traditional payment systems are just as (if not more) exposed: • Many rely on RSA for key exchange (for example, in TLS/HTTPS for secure connections). • Credit cards, wire transfers, and protocols like EMV or PCI DSS use similar cryptographic primitives. • Digital certificates (PKI) that secure banking websites could be compromised, allowing attacks like “man-in-the-middle”. If Bitcoin is often highlighted, it is because it is decentralized and public: a quantum attack could be devastating without a central authority to intervene. But central banks and global financial institutions (like the ECB or the Fed) are aware of the risk and are investing in post-quantum research. it affects everything: secure communications (VPN, emails encrypted like PGP), storage of sensitive data, critical infrastructures (energy, transport), and even alternative blockchains. The Internet as we know it is based on these algorithms. In summary, this is not an isolated threat to Bitcoin, but a systemic challenge to all global cybersecurity. Traditional banking systems, being more centralized, could migrate more easily, but the impact would be enormous if nothing is done.
Not in 20 years. It promises maximum 10 years. With these quantum chips and development I don't think it will survive that long. If anyone cracts RSA encryption, its game over for BTC. It seams impossible now, but future is always unpredictable. Live in current situation. Think about maximum of 1,2 years ahead. Thats my strategy.
Sorta but not really. I asked grok and chat gpt for fun and this is their answer(skip to conclusion for tldr): Quantum computers pose a potential threat to Bitcoin's security, but the situation is nuanced and depends on the state of quantum technology and Bitcoin's response to it. Key Points: 1. **Bitcoin's Cryptographic Algorithms**: - Bitcoin uses **ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm)** for securing private keys and signing transactions, and **SHA-256** for mining and hashing. - Quantum computers could theoretically exploit weaknesses in ECDSA using **Shor's algorithm**, which can efficiently solve the discrete logarithm problem. This could allow an attacker to derive a private key from a public key, potentially compromising wallets if quantum computers become powerful enough. - SHA-256, used in Bitcoin's proof-of-work, is considered more resistant to quantum attacks. While **Grover's algorithm** could theoretically speed up hash cracking (reducing the time to find a hash collision by a factor of the square root), the impact on mining or double-spending attacks is less immediate and would require an infeasible number of qubits and error correction. 2. **Current Quantum Computing Limitations**: - As of August 10, 2025, quantum computers are far from capable of breaking Bitcoin's cryptography. Current quantum computers have limited qubits (e.g., IBM's largest systems have around 1,000 qubits, while breaking ECDSA would require millions of high-quality, error-corrected qubits). - Error rates, coherence times, and scalability remain significant hurdles. Estimates suggest it could take 10–20 years (or more) for quantum computers to reach the scale needed to threaten Bitcoin. 3. **Bitcoin's Defenses and Adaptability**: - Bitcoin's protocol can be upgraded via **soft forks** or **hard forks** to adopt quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms, such as **post-quantum cryptography** (e.g., lattice-based or hash-based signatures). The NIST has already standardized some post-quantum algorithms (e.g., CRYSTALS-Dilithium, FALCON) that could be integrated. - Many Bitcoin wallets use addresses derived from public keys only when spending, meaning private keys are not exposed until a transaction occurs. This limits the window for quantum attacks unless public keys are reused (a practice discouraged by best practices). - The Bitcoin community is aware of the quantum threat and could implement changes proactively if quantum advancements accelerate. 4. **Practical Risks**: - Even with a sufficiently powerful quantum computer, hacking Bitcoin would require targeting specific high-value wallets with exposed public keys, which is a targeted rather than systemic attack. - A quantum computer capable of running Shor's algorithm effectively would also threaten other cryptographic systems (e.g., RSA, HTTPS), making Bitcoin one of many potential targets. - Economic and logistical barriers (e.g., the immense cost of building and operating such a quantum computer) may deter attackers, especially if Bitcoin adapts. 5. **Timeline and Speculation**: - Experts estimate that quantum computers capable of breaking ECDSA are at least a decade away, likely beyond 2035, based on current progress (e.g., IBM, Google, and others' roadmaps). - Posts on X and web sources (as of my last data) reflect mixed opinions: some alarmist claims suggest Bitcoin is at risk soon, while technical analyses (e.g., from cryptography experts) emphasize that quantum computers are not yet a practical threat and Bitcoin has time to adapt. - For example, a 2023 analysis by the Quantum Resistant Ledger team estimated that a quantum computer with ~10 million qubits would be needed to break ECDSA in a reasonable timeframe, far beyond current capabilities. Conclusion: Quantum computers could theoretically hack Bitcoin by breaking ECDSA, but this is not feasible with current or near-future technology (as of 2025). Bitcoin's community can mitigate this risk by adopting quantum-resistant algorithms before quantum computers become a threat. For now, Bitcoin remains secure, but vigilance and protocol upgrades will be crucial in the long term. If you want me to dive deeper into quantum algorithms, post-quantum cryptography, or specific X posts on this topic, let me know!
🔐 Estimating the Probability of Quantum Computing Cracking SHA-256 Let’s clarify what’s involved: ⸻ ⚙️ SHA-256 in a Nutshell • A cryptographic hash function widely used in Bitcoin, blockchain, and digital signatures. • It’s designed to be one-way, meaning you can’t feasibly reverse or “crack” it with classical methods. • Output: 256-bit hash (2²⁵⁶ possibilities ≈ 1.16 × 10⁷⁷). ⸻ ⚛️ What Quantum Computing Can (and Can’t) Do ✅ Quantum Advantage: • Grover’s Algorithm can search an unstructured space of N possibilities in √N time. • For SHA-256, that brings the effective security level from 256 bits to 128 bits. • This is still extremely strong — as strong as AES-128, which is still considered secure. ❌ Quantum Limitations (as of 2025): • Grover’s Algorithm doesn’t “crack” SHA-256 — it only speeds up brute force guessing. • SHA-256 is not broken by Shor’s Algorithm (which is used for breaking RSA/ECC). • A quantum computer capable of attacking SHA-256 with Grover’s Algorithm would need: • Around 10⁶ – 10⁷ logical qubits (not physical qubits — those are much more error-prone). • Millions of quantum gates per query • Extremely low error rates and fault-tolerant architecture. Current state-of-the-art quantum computers (as of 2025): • Have hundreds of physical qubits, not logical qubits. • No current machine can run Grover’s algorithm at SHA-256 scale. ⸻ 🧠 Bottom Line: SHA-256 is quantum-resistant for now. A quantum computer cracking it with Grover’s Algorithm would still take 2¹²⁸ operations, which is still infeasible for the foreseeable future. Estimated probability today (2025): 0% If your application uses SHA-256 (e.g., Bitcoin), it is currently safe from quantum attacks — but future-proofing (e.g., post-quantum cryptography) is worth monitoring for long-term planning.
The only thing that scares me about the future is how seriously quantum computing is already being discussed. Cryptographers warn that RSA-2048 and similar asymmetric algorithms could be broken by cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQCs) as early as 2030, though most experts consider that timeline optimistic. In contrast, symmetric cryptography like SHA-256 holds up better: under Grover’s algorithm, its effective security is halved to \~128 bits, which NIST currently considers acceptable. The bigger short-term risk lies in asymmetric systems like RSA and ECDSA — the cryptographic foundations of Bitcoin, TLS, and digital identity. If IBM, Google, or other players achieve faster-than-expected quantum milestones, there’s a 10–20% chance of viable threats by 2035. Quantum mining, though speculative, could pose another risk. If Grover’s algorithm or future quantum acceleration techniques are applied to Bitcoin mining, entities with access to advanced quantum hardware, e.g., governments, tech giants, could vastly outperform classical miners. This could disrupt Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment and further centralize mining power. AI compounds this. It's accelerating quantum hardware design, optimizing quantum error correction, and shortening time-to-deployment. Some forecasts (e.g., McKinsey) project a $72B quantum industry by 2035, with AI acting as a force multiplier. If Bitcoin hasn’t transitioned to post-quantum-safe signatures like Dilithium by then, it may be vulnerable. How possible is this actually I'm not sure.... Even using AI myself and seeing how far it's advanced since 2023 is just mind-boggling. Willsmith and the spegetti becoming hyper realistic from generated nightmare fuel.....
Well, SHA3 is as quantum-resistant as SHA2. We don't know of a "total break" as the quantum algorithm breaking, say RSA or Diffie-Hellman, is usually phrased. Hashfunctions are quite resistant against quantum computers and seem to remain secure when the hash value is long enough (not crazy long, 512 bits is perfectly fine). That's actually awesome. Hash functions are well studied and we know how to build asymmetric cryptographic primitives such as digital signatures from it. Meaning, we know how to build quantum computer resistant digital signature schemes :-))
Hashes like SHA are not the weak point of crypto currencies. Asymmetric cryptography like RSA, Elliptic curve used for signing of transaction is. If i can issue transactions by pretending to be someone else, then i dont need to break the hashing. i just issue a transaction like any other transaction.
Hashing is considered quantum-secure, but ECDSA and RSA are not. They are vulnerable to Shor's algorithm. The good thing is that there is such a thing as post-quantum cryptography (PQC).
There are quantum algoorithms to reverse RSA but there aren't any to reverse a SHA hash, especially that large. You'd need a lot of quantum compute to make it happen, like millions of qubits, and in the last couple year we're up from 30 to like 50 qubits?
They are not powerful enough or even designed to threaten encryption, they are designed for optimization algorithms. That may change in the future but right now it's not a risk. If they threatened even RSA they wouldn't be allowed to operate
RSA encryption was invented in 1977 at MIT: Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, Leonard Adleman Before this in 1976, Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman published the paper "New Directions in Cryptography", which was the cornerstone of public key cryptography.
What about RSA encryption? What came first?
Quantum computing's gonna fuck crypto up. Those fancy algorithms like RSA and ECC? Shattered like a glass dildo under a sledgehammer once quantum computers hit enough qubits. Shor's algorithm will rip through private keys like a horny teenager through a porn mag, exposing everyones wallets almost instantly. All of crypto not just bitcoin could collapse overnight if quantum tech scales before crypto adapts. Post-quantum cryptography’s the only hope, but it’s like trying to build a bomb shelter while the nuke’s already dropping. some nerds at NIST are scrambling for quantum-resistant algorithms, but good luck getting the whole ecosystem to upgrade before the quantum apocalypse. Oh, and just imagine the quantum miners. They’ll outhash a puny ASICs so fast, you’ll think your rig’s a goddamn abacus. Pretty much we gotta adapt or get fucked.
Not really, no. You can't have a quantum computer in your living room, and probably won't be able to for a very long time if ever. But fortunately it isn't necessary, we have new ciphers that will replace RSA/ECC which are believed to be secure against quantum computers, we just have to switch to them.
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.