SHA

liquid_at

We already have it today. It's just utterly useless because the amount of variables you can encode in the problem is so low that it isn't really doing much for complex math yet. Best QC right now has 1180 Qubits. It cost over 100m USD to build. To crack SHA-256 within 10 minutes, you'd need about 1.9 billion Qubits. Even if it was possible to chain the existing QCs together to achieve that, you'd need about 1.6 million of those QCs, at a combined cost of around 161 Trillion USD. Right now, it would cost you all the money in the world to steal a fraction of the money in the world.

ZeroSumSatoshi

Quantum computing is not a threat to bitcoin….. The wallet addresses encryption can only be cracked if you have spent from that address before… so after a purchase, send your coins to a new wallet. This wallet is completely unhackable no matter how powerful your quantum computer is, as long as you never send coins from it. Also because QC’s use a lot of electricity, if you had one of sufficient power to crack an address, that wallet address would have to have millions worth of bitcoin in it. So you could just spread out your bitcoin across several wallets. Quantum computers are ineffective at attacking the entire bitcoin network, because they operate on qubits (superpositions of 0 and 1), not binary bits, which aren’t optimized for SHA-256’s linear, brute-force hashing. The QC’s general-purpose design doesn’t match ASICs’ specialized speed for this binary task.

iLov3musk

BitcoinTalk Subject: Re: Dealing with SHA-256 Collisions Date: June 14, 2010 at 24:00:00 UTC If SHA-256 became completely broken, I think we could come to some agreement about what the honest block chain was before the trouble started, lock that in and continue from there with a new hash function. - Satoshi Nakamoto

blondfriends

Haha true, they’ve probably uploaded their consciousness to a cold wallet and meditate in SHA-256 now. Still… maybe one of them will bless us with a block of wisdom 🧘‍♂️📦."

cyclicalwand

Any wallet that has not sent a transaction will be safe from quantum computing. When you receive a transaction it’s locked behind a public key hash. It’s only when you send a transaction that the public key is revealed. Quantum computers would first have to break the hash function (RIPEMD-160 combined with SHA-256), which is currently considered quantum-resistant. Just be safe and generate new bitcoin addresses to put your BTC in.

Amazonreviewscool67

> There will be plenty of time for users to update Not if they don't have access to those wallets. If we get to the point where it's inexpensive to break SHA-256, BTC will get dumped **hard**. Then again, we are still quite a long ways away. We have barely even broken 1,000 qubits. But when it happens, it will be catastrophic for lost wallets.

RevengeoftheCuck

Personally I think you should sell for whatever you think is fair value. I have been in the btc space since it was 40-60 dollars a piece. What an individual does is their decision. I have wasted away quite a lot of btc, would I do it again probably yes. If you are using this as an investment I wish the best. I would hope you understand how SHA works, how mining works. It is disturbing to me how centralized btc has become but at the end of the day that was the end goal. The long of the short of this is btc is what you make of it. Only you can decide what is fair value.

crunchyeyeball

I love computerphile. This particular issue is nothing to do with the bitcoin security model though. It's also nothing to do with SHA256 (which is a hashing algorithm, and doesn't involve elliptic curve cryptography at all). The issue the video talks about is a *specific* elliptic curve algorithm the NSA was pushing to be used as a random number generator, "Dual_EC_DRBG", which used suspicious parameters with no explanation, and almost certainly contained a back door: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG Nobody uses that for anything as far as I know, certainly nothing bitcoin-related. Bitcoin also uses elliptic curve cryptography of course, but uses *Secp256k1* (y^2 = x^3 + 7), which is widely understood & trusted: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Secp256k1

nickoaverdnac

I mean its true in theory, but the first quantum computers to break SHA256 won't be available at Best Buy for bad actors to use, it will be in research environments. Giving the community plenty of time to pivot. It's already being worked on. Quantum computers require extreme conditions to function correctly. Is it a concern? Hell yes. Can we avoid disaster? Easily, and we will.

FreezedPeachNow

a little bit conspiratorial and not sure the legitimacy of youtube, but there is a video from a supposed cryptographer...he goes into a weird description of how SHA256 works, and in theory if there was one variable that someone knew on the front end, it would be easily solvable, and the proper steps werent followed when verifying the cryptography which would seem to indicate that a 3 letter agency does indeed posess that variable. I know I am describing it wrong, watch it yourself. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nybVFJVXbww&lc=UgwA6J0zn593oEaSDLt4AaABAg.AGknBbd5AigAJ9a-ByXUqj](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nybVFJVXbww&lc=UgwA6J0zn593oEaSDLt4AaABAg.AGknBbd5AigAJ9a-ByXUqj) I am curious if actual professionals can comment on his statements

Martinator92

Yes, however if they do not know how the key was generated they'd need to brute-force SHA256, since they only know the hash of your pubkey and not the pubkey, there's actually a vulnerability in satoshi's wallet due to him using the pubkey directly and the derivation for a pubkey off of privkey was less secure (I think the best attack uses 70\~ or so bits, there was a discussion on it on bitcointalk about his wallet but I can't find it)

Severe-Masterpiece61

That post is extremely misleading Super-computer are general-purpose CPU/GPU that can do many kind of theoretical calculation while the BTC network is only composed of rig incapable of doing anything besides computing the SHA256 hash of a string Your chart compares two completely different things

Extra-Virus9958

Full bullshit Bitcoin ASICs are ultra-specialized chips that ONLY do SHA-256 hashing. That’s it. They can’t do addition, multiplication, handle RAM, or literally anything else. It’s like comparing an electric can opener to a Swiss Army knife and saying “look, the can opener is 1000x faster at opening cans!” Yeah, but that’s all it does. A modern supercomputer can execute billions of different instructions per second, run complex scientific calculations, physics simulations, machine learning… The entire Bitcoin network wouldn’t even be able to properly emulate a single CPU core due to network latency. So yeah, technically the Bitcoin network processes more TeraFLOPS… but for ONE cryptographic operation only. It’s like saying a factory that only makes bottle caps is “more productive” than a car factory because it outputs more units per hour. This impressive-looking metric means absolutely nothing in practice. It’s just basic crypto marketing to impress people who don’t understand the tech. This comparison is completely bogus IMO.

Charming-Designer944

Bitcoin is crypto, but not encrypton/decryption. The field of cryptography includes other aspects besides encryption The key area of cryptography is - encryption/decryption - secure hashing - secure signatures - verified randomness And bitcoin relies on all of them except the encryption/decryption. Encryption is a two way process. You have some data and a key, the data is scrambled by encryption (using the encryption key) into an unrecognized form, but no information is lost in the process, just transformed. You can later decrypt the scrambled data using the decryption key, which reveals the original data with no loss, and only the original data. Hashing is a one-way process of creating a fingerprint of the data. There is no inverse function and the actual data is not preserved in the hash. And there is also no uniqueness guarantee, multiple different sets of data can in theory result in the same hash value. (hash collisions). The strength of a hash function is determined by its resistance to hash collision attacks. A perfect hash function results in a completely random hash value for each unique input. Signatures is special a kind of hashing, with a little sprinkle of encryption. Clever use of hashes combined with a little sprinkle of encryption proves ownership of some private data not publicly available while at the same time signing off on the validity of some piece of information (Ie a bitcoin transaction). A special.family of signatures uses a public key cryptography as part of the process, enabling the validity of a signature to be verified without access to the private key. In Bitcoin today uses ECDSA signatures. This is closely related to.encryotion/decryption in the inner workings, but the end result is only a hash, which signs off on the validity of the data + public key. A simple example to illustrate the difference between encryption and hashing is file encryption vs file hashing. Encryption of a 1GB file creates another seemingly unreadable 1GB file, while a SHA256 hash of the same file results in small a 32 byte (256 bit) fingerprint of the file. The 32 byte hash obviously cannot contain the 1GB data of the original file, and you cannot reconstruct the original from only the fingerprint. While the encrypted file does contain all of the original data but is transformed to seemingly random data and can be decryptef using the decryption key to reveal the original 1GB of data. A bitcon address is an indirect hash the public component of the ECDSA key that is allowed to spend the coins sent to the address. To spend the coins you need a private key that corresponds to a public key that hashes to the Bitcoin address. In short there is no encryption in Bitcoin. But there is a lot of cryptography. Cryptographic hashing is everywhere (SHA256 and RIPEMD160) and cryptographic public key signatures (ECDSA) to guarantee that only the owner of an address is allowed to spend the coins on that address. And cryptographic randomness to guarantee uniqueness when generating a new wallet seed or a new legacy address.

Charming-Designer944

Bitcoin uses a 160 bit hash of the key when identifying addresses and verifying transactions. RIPEMD160(SHA256(publickeymaterial)) This reduces the number of brute force attempts required to find a matching key to the order of 2^160. There is multiple keys that map to the same 160 bits address. But at the same time the added mixing makes it harder to deduce the public key via attacks on the hashing functions. Even 160 bits are plentiful in the context.

kurnaso184

Systems tend to centralize, not the other way round. Don't know if it's an entropy thing or not, but experience on mostly everything shows this. Email, for example. A few of just one big provider collects all the traffic and the users. \> The system becomes more complex, more decentralized, and more resistant to control. That’s entropy increasing More complex, because it evolves. More resistant to control because the hash power increasees. Both of them not at all entropy related. \> Mining consumes ordered energy (electricity), performs irreversible computation (SHA-256), and produces heat, randomness, and an open monetary network. Yeah. Mostly everything that we do consumes energy and produces heat. Basically, you made a poetic cocktail of non scientificly correct arguments. Btw, \*everything\* in the universe does follow the laws of thermodynamic. You don't have to make it a big deal. The opposite would be, though. q-:

SmoothGoing

SHA256 is used in mining and in generating addresses. The keys are random ones and zeros. SHA256 is not used for "storing passwords." There are no "encrypted passwords" in bitcoin. 10 min block interval is adjusted by difficulty. "Hashing quickly" irrelevant. If you only heard of SHA256 and don't even mention ECDSA, you're not ready to discuss QC.

mediumlong

I'm here for number-go-up. Cryptography, SHA-256, et al confuses the hell out of me.

Somebody__Online

It’s it a fact that both networks run on SHA-256 as their hash algorithm but these networks can not be merge-mined. As a miner you need to choose if you’re gonna point your hash power at Bitcoin core or Bitcoin cash. You can not use the same hashing on both chains simultaneously (it is possible to merge mine other POW chain like Bitcoin and Namecoin can be mined by the same hash, or Litecoin and Dogecoin) But that’s not the case for Bitcoin and its main fork Bitcoin cash. Just because they are both SHA-256 doesn’t mean you can mine them at the same time. It means you can mine them with the same hardware but you still need to pick one or the other. That’s what I mean by the hash rate gets fractured. I have been mining bitcoins since 2014 so it’s it were possible to duel mine these, I would be doing it.

ShinAlastor

Bitcoin mining is a process where miners compete to find a special number called a nonce, which is added to a block header. This header is then hashed using the SHA-256 algorithm. The goal is to find a hash value lower than a target set by the network. This target corresponds to a value between 0 and about 10²², meaning the hash must start with a certain number of leading zeros in binary. Miners try billions of nonces per second until one of them produces a valid hash. When a valid hash is found, the new block is considered valid and gets added to the blockchain, following the previous one. As a reward for this computational work, the miner receives 3.125 BTC (as of the current block reward after the 2024 halving).

LovelyDayHere

> Its hash rate used to be part of bitcoin and now is not. Bitcoin Cash still uses SHA-256 as hash and is therefore mined by an overlapping segment of Bitcoin miners. BCH hashrate IS a part of the overall SHA-256 hashrate which includes BTC and other coins.

RaddyMo

Appreciate the effort, but your argument relies heavily on selective framing and ignores a decade of factual data. “Litecoin has no reason to exist” Litecoin is one of the longest-running decentralized Proof of Work blockchains. It has maintained 100 percent uptime since its launch in 2011, with no protocol-level hacks or reversals. It has processed over 280 million transactions and continues to operate reliably without VC funding or centralized control. This level of operational continuity is uncommon in the crypto space. “Just a Bitcoin clone with minor changes” Litecoin uses a different hashing algorithm, Scrypt instead of SHA-256, which made mining more accessible at launch and helped decentralize early participation. It implemented SegWit in May 2017, months before Bitcoin, and is currently the only major blockchain to have deployed MimbleWimble Extension Blocks, allowing optional confidential transactions. It has also been used as a live environment for upgrades that later reached Bitcoin, including SegWit and Lightning Network compatibility. “It hit 50 dollars in 2013 and now it’s 86” This framing ignores market cycles. Litecoin reached a peak of over 400 dollars in 2021. It has remained in the top 20 cryptocurrencies by market cap across multiple cycles and continues to process significant on-chain activity. Average daily transaction volumes are regularly in the hundreds of thousands, with average transaction fees under half a cent. Few early altcoins have matched that level of long-term utility and persistence. “Only Monero has a real use case” Monero and Litecoin serve different purposes. Monero focuses on privacy and has seen increasing delistings due to regulatory pressures. Litecoin is accepted by payment processors including PayPal, BitPay, and NOWPayments, and is supported at over 14,000 crypto ATMs globally. “Stablecoins have replaced Litecoin” Stablecoins are useful for fiat exposure but rely on centralized issuers and can be frozen or blacklisted. Litecoin operates with no central authority and offers censorship-resistant, final settlement for global transactions. It is still actively used in cross-border payments, withdrawals from ATMs, and peer-to-peer transfers in regions where stablecoin infrastructure is limited or inaccessible. “Bitcoin is eating Litecoin’s monetary premium” Bitcoin is positioned as a long-term store of value. Litecoin is designed for faster and cheaper transactions. It has 2.5-minute block times compared to Bitcoin’s 10 minutes and consistently lower average transaction fees. Litecoin remains integrated into multi-asset payment processors because its characteristics are more aligned with day-to-day usage. Conclusion: Litecoin’s position is not maintained by marketing or speculation. It is the result of long-term stability, protocol-level improvements, and adoption. In an industry that constantly moves on to the next trend, Litecoin has remained relevant by continuing to function, evolve, and serve without interruption.

Asianfoam7

I’m no expert so someone tell me what part of my hypothetical bullshit is correct if any. Before quantum computing has the power to completely destroy the encryption of SHA-256/be able to figure out wallet seed phrases there would be adoption in other fields of tech. Meaning that quantum computing at its first public use won’t have the power to destroy the BTC blockchain and once various parties gain access to the base tech, it will allow the BTC blockchain encryption to be reinforced and upgraded in a similar level of effort to it being broken. The case where quantum computing is developed in private to the level of breaking the blockchain wouldn’t actually happen because it could be used/monetized in so many applications in more primitive levels of development.

CBpegasus

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.

OderWieOderWatJunge

SHA256 is the hash algorithm, Bitcoin's encryption is 256 Bit ECC afaik. Why are you rambling about things you don't understand?

Moistinterviewer

Because their systems that use weaker encryptions are less resilient than SHA256

Big_Pause6471

Thanks for the comment. Yes, agreed, if you take "protcol" in a narrow, but please ,elet me clarify: As of NOW, quantum computing has not broken Bitcoin—this seems undisputed, right? If, hypothetically, in the FUTURE, quantum computing were to break Bitcoin’s cryptographic foundations (ECDSA signatures,  SHA-256), then the Bitcoin community would adopt post-quantum alternatives. These cryptographic schemes already exist—Kyber, Dilithium, Falcon, etc.—and are being standardised by NIST right now. So yes, digital signatures are not encryption if you inisist3 on semanitca, but post-quantum signatures and key exchange mechanisms both exist today. The technical challenge is mostly solved. The remaining challenge is coordination—getting everyone to upgrade before someone’s quantum laptop eats private keys for breakfast. Bitcoin has weathered forks, bans, bugs and Elon’s tweets. Swapping in new cryptographic primitives is not science fiction—it is contingency planning. In short, BTC will survive. (IMHO)

AdBeginning5638

lmfao do you even know how bitcoin cryptography works? A quantum computer would be able to reverse engineer your private key from your public wallet address because the wallet address is the private key put into the SHA 256 hashing function. Again probably didn;t pay attention in school.

mechabased

>BitcoinTalk Subject: Re: Dealing with SHA-256 Collisions Date: June 14, 2010 at 24:00:00 UTC If SHA-256 became completely broken, I think we could come to some agreement about what the honest block chain was before the trouble started, lock that in and continue from there with a new hash function. \- Satoshi Nakamoto

bongosformongos

The danger of quantum computing is it breaking the encryption, not hashrate. You can‘t use a quantum computer to „defend“ bitcoin. It‘s not some tug of war shit. The solution is quantum resistant encryption. Leaving SHA256 behind and deploying a new algorithm.

pop-1988

Bitcoin doesn't need to hard-fork to add new asymmetric digital signature algorithms. Schnorr was added as a soft fork There's a recent obsession with making existing QC vulnerable unspent coins unspendable. That would be a hard fork. But that's not a discussion about quantum computing. It's a choice between mandatory coin burning and allowing spending by QC The elephant in the room is a technical one (conveniently ignored by the QRL fan's comment). A scheme like XMSS (his example) has a signature which is 38 times larger than Bitcoin's current signatures More important, it takes 50x more compute time to verify each signature. For each new block, every Bitcoin node verifies every signature in every transaction input - roughly 5000 txinputs per block. Currently, it takes a node about 9 seconds to verify a block (including the thousands of signatures), and the node network's topology is 3 or 4 layers deep. Full propagation of a new block takes in the order of 43 seconds. In the context of Bitcoin's 10-minute average block interval, the current propagation time is optimal This issue is completely absent from the OP's linked paper. The paper appears to have been written by "Doctors" with a weak understanding of the decentralization aspect of Bitcoin Also, the paper contradicts itself in the discussion about SHA256 hashing - stating that QC hashing isn't a risk to Bitcoin mining, and then claiming that it is. This type of contradiction is a common feature of research papers written partially by LLM engines The paper's justification for predicting a short QC timeframe is very shallow, not based on the reality of the incredibly slow progress of QC research

MrTheums

The post raises valid concerns, but frames them with a bit of hyperbole. While a theoretical quantum computing breakthrough *could* pose a risk to Bitcoin's cryptographic security, the timeline and feasibility remain highly uncertain. Current quantum computers are nowhere near the scale needed to crack Bitcoin's SHA-256 hashing algorithm. The assertion that no nation-state will ever allow Bitcoin to replace its fiat currency is also overly simplistic. El Salvador's adoption demonstrates that nation-states *can* and *do* explore integrating cryptocurrencies into their economies, even if on a limited scale. The key isn't complete replacement, but rather navigating the potential benefits and risks of coexistence. The real question isn't whether Bitcoin will replace fiat, but how these two systems will interact and evolve in the future. This interaction will be driven by factors like regulatory frameworks, technological advancements, and overall market adoption, not just ideological resistance.

rupsdb

# ⚛️ Bitcoin vs. Quantum Computing – A Detailed Look ## 🚨 The Concern The question being asked is valid: *Can quantum computers one day break Bitcoin?* As quantum computing advances, many worry it could: - Derive private keys from public keys (breaking signatures) - Weaken Bitcoin’s cryptographic foundations - Undermine trust in the entire network But let’s break this down with facts and context. --- ## 🔐 Bitcoin's Current Cryptography Stack Bitcoin relies mainly on two cryptographic primitives: ### 1. **ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm)** - Used to sign transactions, proving ownership of BTC. - Private keys sign messages, and public keys verify them. - Based on the difficulty of solving the **elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem**. 🧠 **Quantum Threat**: Shor’s algorithm could break ECDSA by deriving the private key from the public key. However: - Public keys are only exposed once coins are spent. - Addresses (the hash of public keys) offer another layer of protection. ### 2. **SHA-256 (Secure Hash Algorithm)** - Used in mining (proof-of-work) and to generate Bitcoin addresses. - Collision-resistant and preimage-resistant. 🧠 **Quantum Threat**: Grover’s algorithm could reduce its strength from 2^256 to 2^128. Still highly secure, but technically "weakened." --- ## 🛡 What Protects Bitcoin Now? ### ✅ Public Key Hashing - Addresses are `RIPEMD160(SHA256(pubkey))` - Until a transaction is signed and broadcast, only this hash is public. - So even a quantum computer can’t attack what it can’t see. ### ✅ Best Practice: Address Hygiene - Reuse of addresses exposes public keys. - Use new addresses every time. - Use wallets that support BIP32/BIP44 HD address derivation. ### ✅ Upgrade Path: Post-Quantum Cryptography - Bitcoin can adopt new cryptographic schemes. - This would likely happen via a soft or hard fork. - Research already underway into lattice-based cryptography, hash-based signatures (XMSS, SPHINCS+), etc. --- ## 🧠 Strategic Viewpoint ### ❗ If a quantum computer could break Bitcoin: - It could also break **TLS, SSL, banking systems, military encryption, and more.** - Bitcoin would not be the *first* casualty—it would be part of a broader global crisis. - Governments and institutions would *immediately* begin migrating to post-quantum cryptography. ### 🧬 Current State of Quantum Tech - Most powerful quantum computers today (as of 2025) have 100–1,000 qubits. - Breaking Bitcoin requires **millions of stable, error-corrected qubits**. - We are likely **10–20 years away**, based on optimistic projections. --- ## ✅ TL;DR - Quantum computing is a **potential but distant threat** to Bitcoin. - Bitcoin’s design (address hashing, delayed public key exposure) offers **inherent protection**. - The Bitcoin network can and likely will **upgrade cryptographic primitives** if needed. - Practicing **good wallet hygiene** (never reuse addresses) protects you even further. - You don’t need to panic—but staying informed is wise. --- ## 🛠 Want to Prepare? - Use HD wallets like Sparrow, Specter, or BlueWallet with fresh addresses. - Don’t store large amounts in addresses that have been used before. - Follow quantum cryptography research (NIST post-quantum standardization, etc.). - Consider keeping a portion of your BTC offline or in multisig setups. --- ## 📚 Further Reading - [Quantum Threat to Bitcoin – Bitcoin Wiki](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin) - [NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Project](https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography) - [Bitcoin Optech – Quantum Resistance Discussion](https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/quantum-resistance/)

Careless_Ant_4430

It's a serious concern. But as others mentioned, it wouldnt just be bitcoin that would be unsafe, it would be government nuclear codes etc. There is also the quantum update which would have to be forked and agreed upon and would be a big talking point and it would be interesting to see how a consensus fork panned out now that institution and governments are coming to the table. It's worth mentioning though that these are just narratives I have heard from bitcoiners. You should look into googles new chips though. So far (off the top of my head) they are 128 qubit and to crack SHA256 they need to be 1mil qubit. Quantum computers need to be run at crazy low temperatures and not anyone would have access to them even if they were completed from an engineering standpoint. Again, this is just what I've heard. I have also heard people say that talking about quantum computing with a physicist in the room is not talking about quantum computing, it's speculation. Quantum theory is incredibly deep and technical and the public do a lot of filling in the gaps with things they dont understand about it. Quantum mysticism for example. Be wary of this. It's worth doing your own research into these points and not just taking peoples words for it. I hope it can dispel some fears and help you form an appropriate viewpoint on the matter.

AnApexBread

>A lost wallet password would be encrypted with SHA256, SHA256 isn't an encryption scheme. It's a hash function. There's no decrypting it, an you can do is throw arbitrary data at the hashing algorithm and hope that it produces the same output as the key.

McBurger

My understanding would be… kind of? A lost wallet password would be encrypted with SHA256, and if future technology does indeed crack it, then we might have some much bigger problems on our hands. But I guess that’s more probable than guessing a random private key.

estevamjvarga

Input: Help my follow these steps to verify the signature on windows: Optional: Verify the release signatures If you know how to use PGP, you should also click the Verify Release Signatures link on the download page to download a signed list of SHA256 file hashes. The 0.11 and later releases are signed by Wladimir J. van der Laan’s releases key with the fingerprint: 01EA 5486 DE18 A882 D4C2 6845 90C8 019E 36C2 E964 Earlier releases were signed by Wladimir J. van der Laan’s regular key. That key’s fingerprint is: 71A3 B167 3540 5025 D447 E8F2 7481 0B01 2346 C9A6 Even earlier releases were signed by Gavin Andresen’s key. His primary key’s fingerprint is: 2664 6D99 CBAE C9B8 1982 EF60 29D9 EE6B 1FC7 30C1 You should verify these keys belong to their owners using the web of trust or other trustworthy means. Then use PGP to verify the signature on the release signatures file. Finally, use PGP or another utility to compute the SHA256 hash of the archive you downloaded, and ensure the computed hash matches the hash listed in the verified release signatures file. ** The guide was extracted from here: https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#windows-10

estevamjvarga

Here's a step-by-step guide to verify the signature on Windows using PGP (GnuPG) for Bitcoin Core releases. --- ✅ Step-by-Step: Verify Release Signatures on Windows Step 1: Install Gpg4win (GnuPG for Windows) 1. Go to: https://gpg4win.org/ 2. Click Download and run the installer. 3. During installation, select at least: GnuPG Kleopatra (graphical key manager) --- Step 2: Import the Release Signing Key Option A: Use Kleopatra GUI 1. Open Kleopatra. 2. Go to File > Lookup Certificates on Server. 3. Enter the key ID: 90C8019E36C2E964 4. Click Search → Select the key → Click Import. 5. You can then check the key fingerprint by right-clicking the key and choosing Details. Verify it matches: 01EA 5486 DE18 A882 D4C2 6845 90C8 019E 36C2 E964 Option B: Use Command Line Open Command Prompt and run: gpg --keyserver hkps://keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys 90C8019E36C2E964 Then verify the fingerprint: gpg --fingerprint 90C8019E36C2E964 --- Step 3: Download the Necessary Files From https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/, download: The .zip or .exe archive of Bitcoin Core SHA256SUMS file SHA256SUMS.asc file Put all three files in the same folder (e.g., Downloads\BitcoinVerify). --- Step 4: Verify the Signature Option A: In Kleopatra 1. Right-click SHA256SUMS.asc 2. Choose Decrypt/Verify 3. It should say "Verified 'SHA256SUMS'" and show a good signature from Wladimir J. van der Laan. Option B: Using Command Prompt Navigate to the folder where you saved the files: cd %USERPROFILE%\Downloads\BitcoinVerify gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc Expected output (truncated): gpg: Good signature from "Wladimir J. van der Laan ..." If the key is untrusted, it will show a warning, but as long as it says "Good signature", it’s okay. --- Step 5: Verify the SHA256 Hash of the Downloaded File Option A: Using PowerShell Run: Get-FileHash .\bitcoin-*.zip -Algorithm SHA256 Compare the output hash to the corresponding one in the verified SHA256SUMS file. Option B: Use a SHA256 Tool Alternatively, use tools like: HashMyFiles CertUtil (built-in) Example with CertUtil: certutil -hashfile bitcoin-25.0-win64.zip SHA256 --- ✅ Done! If: The signature is verified The SHA256 hash matches the entry in the verified list Then your download is authentic and safe to use. --- Let me know if you want screenshots or if you’re verifying a specific version and file. ** I used chatgpt to generate this response

HSuke

We're talking about ECDSA (vulnerable to Shor's Algorithm) for private keys, not SHA256 for mining. Fixing historical private keys is a hard fix requiring blacklisting. Either way, the whole Internet relies in ECC and ECDSA, so there will be plenty broken due to bring able to decrypting stored traffic from years ago.

Magikarpeles

If we break SHA256 encryption society would cease to function as we know it. Bitcoin will be the least of our problems.

Paul_Allen000

The entire point of BTC is that it is decentralized. If quantum computing could break SHA256 in the future then banks can prepare for it and then implement quantum proof security. It's a bit more difficult to have everyone agree on how to change the source code of bitcoin.

loupiote2

There were no seed phrase on 2011 / 2012. Bip39 was not defined yet. Private keys were created by other means. Eg using SHA256 etc.

3bxb

If a Bosnian schoolboy ever cracks SHA-256 in a browser, we’ve got bigger problems than lost crypto 😂

Aconyminomicon

Hedera has even better encryption with SHA382 and its not a ghost chain. Bitcoin's weak SHA256 will get cracked by a quantum computer eventually.

ComeyR

already have been thinking about this for months, quantum machines solves tasks exponentially and is the most powerful and effective way to solve algorithms, hashes. already blockchain and BTC use these hashing algorithms (SHA1)

ec265

This isn’t true as not every blockchain uses SHA-256 And blockchains that implement changes will be able to be quantum proof with lamport signatures This is specifically a problem for ossified protocols

Aconyminomicon

It is all about reaching consensus. Time to finality. Blockchain is a one way road, easily congested, bottlenecks. Hashgraph is like an interstate. Many lanes open for going very fast while being safe. The "its centralized" or its "closed source" are old talking points from 5 years ago. They are open source and incentivize people to develop on their network. They are also ISO20022 compliant so it can easy be integrated with the current infrastructure. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjQkag6VOo0&t=638s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjQkag6VOo0&t=638s) If you want to learn more, this is the video to watch. Its a talk at Harvard from the guy who created the Gossip2Gossip protocol and solved the trilema problem. Making it instantly scalable with Asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerance, which is the gold standard. Also hedera network is more quantum resistant because of the security because you would need 68% on the network to gain control. Instead of SHA 256 like most networks (BTC), Hedera has better encryption with SHA 384. What encryption does Kaspa use, I truly don't know?

CaptainPugwash75

Yeah why don’t they say that, you break SHA256 everything’s is fucked.

Darioblock

In theory, yes. In practice, not yet. The main risk is to Bitcoin’s digital signatures (ECDSA). A strong enough quantum computer could use Shor’s algorithm to extract private keys from public keys — meaning coins could be stolen from used addresses. But that would require millions of stable, error-corrected qubits. We're nowhere near that. Realistically, it's decades away — if it ever happens. SHA-256 (used for mining and address generation) is less vulnerable and would require an enormous quantum effort to break. Most Bitcoin addresses don’t expose their public keys until they send funds, which adds some protection. If quantum computing ever becomes a real threat, Bitcoin could transition to quantum-resistant cryptography. It wouldn’t be simple, but it’s technically possible. **TL;DR:** Quantum could break Bitcoin one day, but it’s not a risk today. The network has time to adapt — if it stays proactive.

Romando1

Hack SHA? Can’t we just add 12 more words?

OGPaterdami_anus

Btc alone isnt the future. Be realistic... Unless it goes up a SHA it a risk.

Illustrious-Pay6341

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.

adeo54331

lol… the leave out the bit that IF SHA 256 is broken all the fucking planes will fall out the sky 😂 we will have much bigger problems than Bitcoin tbh

ande630b

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.

CBpegasus

Exactly, the issue isn't block signing with SHA256 but transaction signing with ECDSA. Breaking the ECDSA scheme is actually waaaaaay easier for a QC than breaking SHA256 (QC only has a quadratic advantage on reversing hash - i.e. it would take it about 2^128 steps instead of 2^256 - but an exponential advantage on ECDSA - i.e. n to some power instead of 2^n) so it's actually not unlikely it would break it in one block time, but as you said that's not even necessary - breaking a wallet to be able to sign transactions in its name and drain it has no time limit.

CBpegasus

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!

Guilty_Fisherman5168

>Banks, passwords, emails, you name it, it's secured by SHA256. Wishful thinking and also not correct. Encryption is only one part of a security model. SHA256 hashing is only used for everything. Encryption is only relevant if you have access to the network between the client and the server. If the client and the server are centralised 99% of people won't have access to this link. Eg if I create a banking portal over HTTP and bob is signing in Alice won't be able to intercept the password unless they are an ISP or on the same network (wireless) Furthermore centralised systems can just be frozen and rolled back arbitrarily without a fuss. Saying QC effects centralised systems like banks the same way as decentralized systems is wishful thinking

cryptonaughtx1

Consider this! BLUF - Quantum can pose a risk,to Bitcoin, optimistically 1-2 decades out, IF the network is not agile to adoption - however, solutions exist today. Why? First, when it comes to SHA-256, with Quantum we’d have machines that can solve blocks faster. Cool, so do something like migrate to SHA-512. Second, the real threat, is cracking ECDSA/digital signatures and getting private keys. Okay, we already have alternatives in place that are Quantum-resistant, such as CRYSTALS-Dilithium, so again, the network just needs to adopt these before Quantum machines come online. Echoing others, this Quantum problem breaks the internet of things, not just Bitcoin. However, there are plenty of opportunities to mitigate well before then. Don’t let people scare you out of your Bitcoin!!

Alfador8

Your whole premise is incorrect. They're not complex equations. They're SHA256 hashes. The point isn't to find a solution, it's to force real world resource expenditure to mine bitcoin.

AromaticQueef

Did you even read the article? SHA 256 isn't the nearest attack vector - it's the elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) underpinning the wallet. Grover's isn't even applicable in this regard; it's Shor's - an entirely different, and much more threatening, attack Centralized tech like banks, companies, etc... have a much easier time rolling out post quantum tooling and upgrades to combat against this because they are centralized. Bitcoin's greatest strength - decentralization - is it's greatest weakness here

LargeSnorlax

That's the joke - Literally everything in the world will be affected before Bitcoin. Banks, passwords, emails, you name it, it's secured by SHA256. People treating quantum computing as a threat to Bitcoin don't know what other things encryption protects: Spoilers, it's everything. If there's a quantum computer out there solving SHA256 in the time it takes for a transaction to get on a bitcoin block, everything else is doomed anyways and all of society has to adopt a new standard.

waydownsouthinoz

They keep missing the point that cracking Bitcoin wallets is going to be the least of the world’s worries if quantum computing gets good enough to compromise SHA-256. THE ENTIRE BANKING SYSTEM RELIES ON IT, BOTH FRONT AND BACK END SYSTEMS.

balr99

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.

reza-rockt

Asked ChatGPT, here is the answer: Here is the analysis and evaluation of the Reddit post: > "As soon as quantum computers go into mass production, Bitcoin will die, so I think in the next 10–15 years it’s gone." --- 1. Technical Background The Concern: Bitcoin uses elliptic curve cryptography (ECDSA) and SHA-256 for signatures and hashing. In theory, a powerful enough quantum computer could: Break ECDSA by deriving private keys from public keys. Weaken SHA-256 using Grover’s algorithm. Current Reality (2025): Existing quantum computers (from Google, IBM, etc.) have too few logical qubits, high error rates, and no practical scalability for breaking cryptography. Studies estimate that millions of fault-tolerant qubits and weeks/months of stable operation would be needed to threaten Bitcoin addresses. --- 2. Bitcoin’s Resilience Bitcoin addresses don’t expose public keys until coins are spent; unspent outputs (UTXOs) are not attackable. Even if ECDSA were broken, Bitcoin can migrate to quantum-resistant cryptography (e.g., Schnorr variants, Lamport, XMSS). The Bitcoin community has already handled major protocol upgrades (SegWit, Taproot). Post-quantum cryptography is actively being standardized (e.g., by NIST). --- 3. Evaluation of the Claim False Assumptions: “Mass production” of quantum computers = threat: Wrong. Only very specific, high-scale quantum architectures with error correction could pose a threat. “Bitcoin will die”: Dramatic and uninformed. Bitcoin is adaptable, and changes can be implemented if necessary. “10–15 years”: Pure speculation. No evidence, no technical nuance. Oversights: Other systems (banks, governments, the internet) would be compromised before Bitcoin. Bitcoin has the time, incentive, and developer community to upgrade before an actual threat materializes. --- Conclusion This Reddit post is technically shallow, alarmist, and misleading. It ignores current quantum limitations, Bitcoin’s upgrade paths, and broader systemic implications. The probability of Bitcoin dying due to quantum computing in the next 10–15 years is low — assuming the community remains proactive, which it already is. Bitcoin won't die from quantum computing. It will evolve.

Letsgotothemovie

All you need is a random SHA 256 private address.

Veggieboy1999

Indeed, I also try to get across as often as possible that you don't need any specialised hardware or crypto platform for holding Bitcoin (or almost any crypto) - you just need a clean laptop and the right programs. I must say, I didn't know you can generate endless addresses from the same public key - how does this work? I had always thought that the route from a public key to a particular type of address was unique, whether it be P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH or P2TR (such as base58Check("00" + RIPEMD160(SHA256(publicKey))) for legacy P2PKH addresses).

Veggieboy1999

Indeed, I also try to get across as often as possible that you don't *need* any specialised hardware or crypto platform for holding Bitcoin (or almost any crypto) - you just need a clean laptop and the right programs. I must say, I didn't know you can generate endless addresses from the same public key - how does this work? I had always thought that the route from a public key to a particular type of address was unique, whether it be P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH or P2TR (such as base58Check("00" + RIPEMD160(SHA256(publicKey))) for legacy P2PKH addresses).

sgtslaughterTV

Sure, so here's a pretty straight-forward analogy: Have you ever seen or heard of a chihuahua taking down and killing a full-grown labrador? I haven't, but I have seen (with my own two eyes), a chihuahua freak out, start snarling and barking at, and generally scare the living daylights out of a labrador when that labrador tried eating from the same bowl as the chihuahua at the same time. Having studied 3 weeks for a cybersecurity certificate (a segment of which covers many encryption algorithms (including SHA-256) and asymmetric cryptography), and studying what quantum computing is, it's not a threat, but it can scare the living daylights out of people who nothing about it.

Aconyminomicon

We already have a quantum proof crypto in the top 25 that uses SHA-384 instead of Bitcoin's SHA 256. You would need ore than 68% to attack the network instead of 51%. The network is incorporated into current AI software as a checks and balance system because it scales, unlike Bitcoin and any other network that has basic blockchain encryption. It sucks that so many people are working on fixing a network that doesn't scale in the first place. Good luck getting a true consensus within the Bitcoin community. Blockstream runs the (lightning) network anyways.

freakythrowaway79

Quantum PCs won't be available to public for another 5ish years. Quantum & brute force code would struggle breaking even today's SHA-256 encryption. The math behind it is mind boggling. Js

SeveralSats

A quantum computer would break the hashing algorithm that underpins the blockchain, SHA-256. At that point we’re well beyond needing to crack your wallet password, it could calculate any wallets private key and mine blocks near instantly. This is all in theory of course, but appears to be an inevitability at some point.

fan_of_hakiksexydays

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.

LargeSnorlax

If SHA256 gets cracked the world is donezo, because everything uses SHA256. Literally everything. Email, the internet, nuclear launch codes, your bank details, you name it. Quantum being able to solve SHA256 in the time it takes to do a Bitcoin block would be the least of your concerns because the world will already be in nuclear war/societal breakdown by that point.

PulIthEld

aight so im actually starting to get concerned about SHA256 getting cracked with quantum computers.

CasualRedditObserver

Second question. If you did read it, were you aware that it's a conceptual introduction to the concept of a digital currency, but that it does not accurately describe how Satoshi actually implemented Bitcoin? For example, when describing proof-of-work, the white paper says "The proof-of-work involves scanning for a value that when hashed, such as with SHA-256, the hash begins with a number of zero bits". But if that were true, you'd only ever be able to either double the difficulty or cut it in half. Finer tuned difficulty adjustments would be impossible, so Satoshi implemented a target value instead. Another example, the white paper says, "Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one". However, that would open the blockchain up to attack by a huge number of very low difficulty blocks. Instead, Satoshi implemented the concept of largest total accumulated work.

0xFuture

VT is not fail proof, take it from someone who handled another LummaStealer today. Want to be safer, learn how to verify SHA hashes in your CLI or use a sandbox if you’re skeptical. There’s some free ones that allow 1 check per day, but can’t remember their names.

_peanut-butter_

What you are trying is not possible by human or even by Quantum computers yet! breaking SHA-256 is like Imagine you are lost in the Milky Way and now you are trying to come back to earth without google map.

preland

Since you asked for reasons why not to, here are my main ones: Scalability: bitcoin relies on a monolithic ledger system, which means that the maximum number of potential active users will always be limited. L2 solutions attempt to fix this, but it is little more than a stopgap solution. This fundamental challenge leads to a lot of downstream issues, such as inflated transaction costs. Centralization of hashrate: while it isn’t normally thought of in this way, the hashrate on bitcoin is inherently severely skewed towards ASICs and whoever can control their creation, ownership, and usage. When the majority of the hashrate resides within professional mining facilities that can be restricted by governments (or, in an anarchy situation, can be easily located and destroyed due to power/water use and noise), the hashrate is no longer a good indicator of the “average” Bitcoin user, or even the average person who wants to contribute to Bitcoin. As for some of the points that you listed, here are a couple counterpoints that you may not have considered: The purpose: Bitcoin has transitioned from mainly being a currency to mainly being a store of value. This has upsides and downsides. The upside is that there is a much larger investment pool for people who want to purchase into “stores of value” like gold, as opposed to actual currencies. Plus, increasing the value of a currency is probably the most difficult thing to do. On the downside, being a store of value had an inherent flaw: objects that are stores of value are inherently zero sum. In other words, if 1 million people buy bitcoin for 1 billion dollars, and no one else “buys in”, the most that the 1 million people can get is 1 billion. However, once you take into account transaction fees and taxes (pay your taxes), it becomes a negative sum game. Power consumption: Bitcoin’s hashrate is the purest form of unadulterated capitalism. Whatever the cheapest form of electricity is, they will go for it. In fact, they **must** go for it. Being charitable in mining is not a virtue; it is the seeds to your own inevitable destruction. This is not to say that bitcoin miners have to use the worst possible methods to mine. But if the worst possible method also happens to be the most efficient, and they can get away with it….they must. -govt: I agree with this. There isn’t any real reason for a government to create a CBDC, and there is even less of a reason for anyone to use it (unless they are coerced into it) - history: I don’t think that this is necessarily the case. In fact, bitcoin may be the most in trouble in this regard. From how you phrased it, I’m assuming you are referring to the chance that an adversary “races” a network’s entire blockchain history in order to defeat it. However, any network that is only a few months old and has a sizeable hashrate would make such an attack unviable. If you assume that the hashrate are “broken” in some way (be it quantum or otherwise), then things get interesting. SHA-256, while strong, is quite old, and is absolutely the first hashing algorithm on the menu of an attacker. And while racing any chain will still be incredibly difficult, I don’t think that Bitcoin’s history lead would matter (if someone has an academic paper on this, feel free to link it, because I am genuinely curious). Hope this helps

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; TAO Hash, a Bittensor Subnet 14 initiative, is revolutionizing Bitcoin mining by decentralizing and amplifying SHA-256 hashrate mining. It creates a liquid, tradable market for mining power, addressing Bitcoin's vulnerability of mining centralization. In its first week, TAO Hash achieved nearly 2 EH/s with 11 miners, potentially controlling 1% of Bitcoin's hashrate if growth continues. The system aligns incentives for validators and miners, optimizing resource allocation. TAO Hash aims to enhance Bitcoin security and decentralization while expanding to other PoW cryptocurrencies. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

SteelGhost17

My fiancé got me a SHA-256 sweater from Braiins mining. Best part is, no one really understands what it means 🤣

Original_Lab628

It’s the opposite. Decentralized systems can’t respond to acute threats. Centralized entities like banks can reverse transactions and quantum proof overnight since there isn’t any migration required or consensus mechanism. Decentralized entities can’t do it until they see the problem. At that point, it’s too late since it would take more than two years to migrate addresses over to being quantum proof. It’s too late by the time the first quantum computer can crack SHA-256 to start migrating then. It will take all the coins before you can even migrate 1% of the addresses and permanently damage the network’s reputation.

hughhefnerd

Easily? I think you underestimate SHA-256. Quantum computers will need about a million quibits to break sha-256. Right now at best we can do about 1000

Jutechs

Are you trying to break SHA-256 or have a physiological conversation about what happened if it was possible.

DeeDzs

Read Broken money, and the Bitcoin standard books at a bare minimum The Bitcoin white paper - read it. @aantonop - Andreas Antonopoulos YouTube channel - watch everything from beginning to end. Check out his books too. Fun stuff: How secure is SHA256 - https://youtu.be/S9JGmA5_unY?si=4IzMqpMS1FIDstQs How does Bitcoin work?: https://youtu.be/bBC-nXj3Ng4?si=_xXQAw-368Psdxb6 Learn about the Blockchain wars. Find documentaries on YouTube. Understand what you are investing in!

DeeDzs

There are a lot of books now, but off the top of my head. Broken money, and the Bitcoin standard. The Bitcoin white paper - read it. @aantonop - Andreas Antonopoulos YouTube channel - watch everything from beginning to end. Check out his books too. Fun stuff: How secure is SHA256 - https://youtu.be/S9JGmA5_unY?si=4IzMqpMS1FIDstQs How does Bitcoin work?: https://youtu.be/bBC-nXj3Ng4?si=_xXQAw-368Psdxb6 Learn about the Blockchain wars. Find documentaries on YouTube. That should give you a good start.

GMEthLoopring

If/when SHA-256 ever gets cracked

Moistinterviewer

I’m an early adopter for most things, when I first read about it and knew very little it sounded like a great idea but it took me quite some time to buy in as I just didn’t get the whole exchange thing, I even had mining rigs that ran FAH because I thought it was great to give that compute to charity and head my house for free, it was some time later I discovered nice hash and by then GPU mining was not possible on SHA256.

InsideTrouble6689

Who is Satoshi? Who made SHA256 algorithm? NSA The US gov is Satoshi. Greatest checkmate chess move in history.

StackOwOFlow

Quantum computing that breaks SHA-256 is the final boss of ALL monies

low_contrast_black

Well, there’s a difference between encryption and cryptography hashing. Encryption implies decryption, and yes, requires a key - even if it’s a simple substitution cypher (e.g. the secret decoder ring). Then you move up to methods like PGP which have a private key for encoding and public keys for decoding. The blockchain works with cryptographic hashing, which is a one-way, destructive operation that doesn’t take a cypher key. Rather, it takes input data, and something called a salt value, and produces an output that cannot recreate the input. That might sound like a crazy idea, but it’s awesome for privacy and security. As long as you have the same input and same salt, given an algorithm like SHA-256, you will always generate the same hash. A relatively simple example is a modern password system. The user inputs their password, you then combine it with a known salt, and a chosen algorithm produces a hash code. The system stores the hash code. There’s no way to retrieve the user’s original passcode, or even glean properties of the input from the hash. So when a user logs into a system, it’s asking for the password, using its salt value and runs that through the hashing algorithm. If the hash codes match, congratulations you provided the correct input and are now authenticated. The blockchain is a bit different because of network difficulty, which states that the resulting hash of a block must meet certain criteria. It’s called a proof-of-work system because most of the hashes we generate simply don’t meet the criteria and are discarded, so we change the salt and hash again. Over and over. Eventually (averaging about every 10 minutes) a computer manages to produce a hash that meets the criteria and a block is confirmed.

Turbulent_County_469

Samsung Toshiba - Nakamichi Motorola Also.. SHA is an algorithm developed by NSA So .. you never know what's going to happen

semvantuijn

Eventually, when quantum computers will become powerful enough to break SHA-256 encryption, all lost Bitcoin private keys will be "recovered" if they haven't been upgraded to a quantum proof encryption algorithm (because the owners who lost the Bitcoin can't access it). So deflation due to lost private keys are unlikely to cause excessive deflation to the point that a Satoshi is too big a base unit. Also, on the Lightning Network you can make transactions of amounts way smaller than a Satoshi (1/100 or 1/1000 of a Satoshi I believe). Hope this answers your question

slimdizzy

Breaking SHA 256 will cause bigger problems than just breaking Bitcoin. Not worried.

Darkest_Visions

Can you actually say that with quantum computers able to break SHA 256 ?

Mantis-Prawn

When there is more computer power we can also encrypt harder. So by then will be stepping over to SHA1024 or something. Other are worried that quantum computing will help the people learn how to genetically manipulate iron into gold.  There is always something to worry about. There is also always a solution or a substitute.

Capable_Swordfish_30

The danger to Bitcoin from quantum computers is exaggerated. First, because it is not even clear whether it is possible to scale them to the number of qubits required to make them a threat. Second, because they would break digital signatures but not the SHA256 hash, meaning funds in all non-reused addresses would remain secure. Third, because there will be ample time to implement post-quantum signatures, just as Schnorr was introduced. Bitcoin faces other real challenges, not quantum computing.

Amphibious333

Quantum computers are a Silicon Valley scam running for decades. It's an investor cash-grab scam. Also, if SHA-256 is no longer useful at some point, there is nothing to prevent the Bitcoin developers from implementing a more complex and advanced encryption algorithm. Quantum computers are more of a sci-fi thing rather than something real. They are just an overhyped prototype technology meant to attract investors's money. Watch this video debunk: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xcbZJDJlptk&pp=ygUWUXVhbnR1bSBjb21wdXRlcnMgc2NhbQ%3D%3D

OverallHearing5

All the crypto fellating from bitcoin influencers has made me sick. I hope someone unleashes a high powered quantum computer on the SHA-256 and breaks this trash down now.

jumpinfunkjunk

SHA256 encryption allows for generation of wallets that is more than the estimated atoms in the universe. It's the law of large numbers protecting you.

nickoaverdnac

This problem is already being worked on. SHA256 isnt limited to bitcoin