Is Quantum Computing going to be able to hack your Bitcoin ...

TIL the Large Bitcoin Collider has successfully cracked private keys for multiple bitcoin wallets, despite quantum computing still being decades away.

TIL the Large Bitcoin Collider has successfully cracked private keys for multiple bitcoin wallets, despite quantum computing still being decades away. submitted by twiggers to hacking [link] [comments]

SLP84 Stepan Snigirev – Quantum Computing Threat to Bitcoin and Next Generation Bitcoin Hardware Wallets

SLP84 Stepan Snigirev – Quantum Computing Threat to Bitcoin and Next Generation Bitcoin Hardware Wallets submitted by stephanlivera to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

If I was a Rofschild-controlled government agency, and I therefore didn't particularly like Bitcoin, then I'd definitely invest in quantum computing so I could break wallets' private keys and mine nonces. Just sayin'.

If I was a Rofschild-controlled government agency, and I therefore didn't particularly like Bitcoin, then I'd definitely invest in quantum computing so I could break wallets' private keys and mine nonces. Just sayin'. submitted by fiercemodern to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Will Quantum Computing Be Able to Hack Bitcoin Wallets?

Has anyone given thought to the next 10-20 years? With Quantum computing emerging on the scene what will be the implications for Bitcoin and encryption?
submitted by cucubabba to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: TIL the Large Bitcoin Collider has successfully cracked private keys for multiple bitcoin wallets, despite quantum computing still being decades away. /r/hacking

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: TIL the Large Bitcoin Collider has successfully cracked private keys for multiple bitcoin wallets, despite quantum computing still being decades away. /hacking submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Will Quantum Computing Be Able to Hack Bitcoin Wallets? /r/Bitcoin

Will Quantum Computing Be Able to Hack Bitcoin Wallets? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

HD Wallets and Quantum Computer /r/Bitcoin

HD Wallets and Quantum Computer /Bitcoin submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Will it be possible to access to bitcoin wallets in the future? Using quantum computers etc

Do you think that there will be a way to "harvest" lost bitcoins from abandoned wallets using things like quantum computers in the future?
There is a guy who has lost access to his wallet with 103 bitcoins inside.
Link to the wallet
It is said that 4 million bitcoins are lost like those 103. Wouldn't it be nice to get them? ;-)
submitted by ulros to fbitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Discussion • Quantum Computers Wallets, Encryption and and Bitcoin blockchain

submitted by btcforumbot to BtcForum [link] [comments]

Daily Discussion, October 16, 2020

Please utilize this sticky thread for all general Bitcoin discussions! If you see posts on the front page or /Bitcoin/new which are better suited for this daily discussion thread, please help out by directing the OP to this thread instead. Thank you!
If you don't get an answer to your question, you can try phrasing it differently or commenting again tomorrow.
Join us in the Bitcoin Chatroom!
Please check the previous discussion thread for unanswered questions.
submitted by rBitcoinMod to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

MAAM – Monero Ask Anything Monday – October 12, 2020

Given the success of the previous MAAMs (see here), let's keep this rolling.
The principle is simple: ask anything you'd like to know about Monero, especially the dumb questions that you've been keeping for you every other days, may the community clarify it all!
Finally, credits to binaryFate for starting the concept!
submitted by AutoModerator to Monero [link] [comments]

Mentor Monday, August 17, 2020: Ask all your bitcoin questions!

Ask (and answer!) away! Here are the general rules:
And don't forget to check out /BitcoinBeginners
You can sort by new to see the latest questions that may not be answered yet.
submitted by rBitcoinMod to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Daily Discussion, August 18, 2020

Please utilize this sticky thread for all general Bitcoin discussions! If you see posts on the front page or /Bitcoin/new which are better suited for this daily discussion thread, please help out by directing the OP to this thread instead. Thank you!
If you don't get an answer to your question, you can try phrasing it differently or commenting again tomorrow.
Join us in the Bitcoin Chatroom!
Please check the previous discussion thread for unanswered questions.
submitted by rBitcoinMod to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Ledger Isolation vulnerability is much more dangerous than people might think

The recently revealed vulnerability in Ledger is much worse than people might think.
At least I could see on Ledger and Bitcoin subs, that people think, they are safe if they do not download some malware on their pc/laptop.
But this is wrong.
The issue can be exploited also when you use only standard applications on your Ledger which are affected (BTC and its derivates)
The attack vector here is, if some tricks you to interface with the malicious web wallet with your Ledger. (so no you do not need to install anything to lose your coins)
As an example:
  1. the attacker sends you a link for LTC web wallet (he says it is a new really great wallet and want you to try or whatever other reason)
  2. you think you are safe, after all, Ledger protects your private keys and everything has to be confirmed. So you connect and will try to send out some LTC to the attacker just as a donation or anything else.
  3. The web wallet sends spoofed transaction to your Ledger, so you think you are confirming LTC transfer, instead your BTC is sent out
There are many scenarios like this. You are affected anytime you interact with your Ledger and any web service. (not only if you use fake sw wallets)
I explicitly asked about it and this attack vector was confirmed by Ledger.
Stay safe.
submitted by emreddit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Question about security of wallet seeds/keys

I keep seeing the statement "the likelihood of someone guessing your private key is so astronomically unlikely that it should be never be a concern".
So what happens when there are millions/billions of people who have private keys. Couldn't someone just put together a random word generator that guesses 12/24 word combinations like 10,000 of them per minute or something and just run it day and night until they successfully luckily guess some random person on the planet's key and empty their account?
submitted by RebelWithoutPause to cardano [link] [comments]

Daily Ripple/XRP Discussion Thread 07/26/20 [Join Our Discord] invite link:

Hello! It's Sunday. Welcome to our daily discussion thread.
You can discuss anything related to Ripple and XRP here.
Before posting, read the Ripple rules on the sidebar and also check out the thread containing helpful links:
If you see any rule-breaking content, please report by contacting the moderator team modmail
We now have an official discord channel dedicated to Ripple:
This channel is also used for XRP. While there are rules to follow, it will be a more relaxed environment where
you can discuss anything related to Ripple and XRP. The channel is not affiliated with Ripple the company.
submitted by AutoModerator to Ripple [link] [comments]

ELI5 how secure Bitcoin is please

So, assuming I take all precautions to keep my Bitcoin secure with a cold storage wallet and everything, how secure is it? Will it still be secure with quantum computing making headway?
submitted by AnimorphsGeek to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I'm trying to be positive but GL's actions are the opposite of intelligence. This is the worst update in A9 history. I'll explain why...

I'm trying to be positive but GL's actions are the opposite of intelligence. This is the worst update in A9 history. I'll explain why...
It's a pretty long rant. You have been warned...
  • Worsened graphics. Same device, much worse graphics for no reason. They literally made the game engine worse.
  • Frame skipping and lagging everywhere. Also game crashes. They said they optimized the game. I bet they forgot to mention that you need a quantum computer to play their casino racing masterpiece.
  • The older bug with the mini map (tap do steer players can't tap in that area) is back.
  • The infamous lagging screen after every freaking race (what the hell are they doing in background that the phones become so hot? bitcoin mining?). They still didn't fix it after the recent hotfix! Who pays these clowns who can't even revert some dumb changes?
  • The unfair SE. There are hardly tokens offered. They keep reducing the rewards until there will be nothing left except uncommon parts and a few credits. They expect us to play hundreds of races for peanuts. The finest greediness. Also how come SE still shares the same tickets pool with daily events? They are different things!
  • Same old stinky GP. Everyone knows what is wrong with this thing that has nothing in common with real grand prixes except the name. Most regular players don't win keys. Why should we even bother anymore?
  • The hard Unleashed event. They put the same required time 0:51 despite the cars having different rankings. They don't have the expression "fair play" in their dictionary.
  • Credits heist is good in theory. In practice they added the awful police besides the aggressive AI to make sure you can't get those credits. They also added stars requirements for good measure. Also they made it that way you need to play too many races if you want all rewards. Efficiency is again not in their dictionary.
  • The new MP format which encourages dumb grinding to get some decent milestones.
  • The club rewards remain a joke.
  • You need to complete 250 conditions in SE just to have the chance to buy packs! Whatever GL idiot who thought of that should have his head smashed on his monitor.
  • They still didn't fix that stupid error with no internet connection! My internet is working, it's not my fault you can't code a decent internet connection algorithm.
  • The cheaters are still dominating MP. The Android version has such a poor security that every schmuck can abuse the game. I wonder if anyone even reads those in game reports or are there as placebo effect.
  • Did you check how much internet traffic this game consumes? What the fxx-k they transfer that A9 needs gigabytes of data every month just to play it?
  • Should I mention the bunch of useless employees called Customer Care? An appendix is more useful than them.
  • etc
But we have emoticons! And new cars while most of us didn't even max out or unlock many of the previous premium cars. Give me a reason why should I keep playing...

I hope your wallet is as big as their greediness..
submitted by SpaceGenesis to Asphalt9 [link] [comments]

Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

This is a follow-up on
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given public key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).


I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Cryptocurrencies: the Past Reinvented

Cryptocurrencies: the Past Reinvented
As the first country to industrialise in the 1760s, Britain’s manufacturing revolution set the world on one of the greatest practical and ubiquitous changes in human history. Even more extraordinary is the fact that Britain’s industrialisation remained way ahead of potential competition for decades. Only in the early 1900s did historians get to grips with the issues of causation. Max Weber’s pithy answer “the Protestant work ethic” pointed to Puritan seriousness, diligence, fiscal prudence and hard work. Others include the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694 as an essentially corollary by creating the necessary conditions for financial stability. In contrast, Continental Europe lurched from one national debt crisis to another, then through itself headlong into the Napoleonic wars. Unsurprisingly, it was not until after 1815 industrialisation took place on the European mainland where it was spearheaded by the new country of Belgium.
250 years latter with the launch of Bitcoin another revolution had begun; though this one more commercial in nature than industrial. Though the full impact has yet to be played out, the parallels between these two historical events are already striking. Bitcoin may not match the obviousness of industrialisation, but the underlying pragmatics touch on the very foundations of the non-barter economy. Like the establishment of the Bank of England, the creation of the cryptocurrency infrastructure has been prompted by ongoing and worsening threats to financial instability; systemic fault-lines created by macroeconomic challenges flowing from the 2008 crash.
For those who could “join the dots” in 2008, there was the realisation that central banks no longer existed as guardians and protectors of national currencies but the tools of creating politicised market distortions; abandoning their duty to preserve wealth in favour of creating the conditions for limitless, cheap government debt. While many of the underlying intentions were benign, inherently the process worked to punish savers and reward reckless debt.
This anticipation of on-going instability surrounding fiat currencies and the viability of crypto alternatives has proved more prescient than could have ever been previously imagined. Within a short space of time a wave of undercurrents gave rise to new vocabularies, outlooks and expectations which have impacted commercial and investment transactions, a change never more acutely observed than today, when even against the backdrop of the COVID crisis Central Banks are rushing to create their own “digital” krona, pound, dollar etc. “Digital” may represent a confusing nomenclature, however, as these are not cryptocurrencies in the true sense, and certainly not part of decentralised finance (DeFi). The digital krona does, however, manifest the increasingly powerful impact that the cryptocurrency ecosystem is having on mainstream banking and government behaviour.
As with Britain’s industrial revolution, it has taken time for the potential of cryptocoins to find more energetic traction. Over the past 12 years cryptocurrencies have moved from unknown, to novel, to significant and growing interest. As a result, profound changes are underway affecting the mechanics by which investors, the investment industry, wealth mangers and even the commercial banking sector is engaging with cryptocurrencies. This interest has quickened as we enter into a period of deep economic unknown and growing awareness that structural soundness is shifting away from traditional investment options.
Intelligent engagement requires cryptocurrency investors/wealth managers to accurately understand and correctly explicate the nature of these influences and assess their potential impact. This article suggests seven distinct elements (a non- exhaustive list) as currently ranking definitive importance:
  1. Cryptocurrencies comprise account for only a tiny fraction of the global economy. At an estimated value of $375 billion, this is several orders of magnitude smaller than a world GDP of $35 trillion (2019). Assuming other factors are favourable, there is clearly room for growth.
  2. Cryptocurrency success will mark the end of critical aspects of Central Banking monopoly; by revealing the fictitious nature of fiat currencies as a principle; by offering a more competitive vehicle for facilitating commercial transactions; and providing a more stable medium to store monetised assets. Apart from stability, cryptocurrencies offer real returns on “cash” deposits, something which the fiat banking system has long since abandoned. (The reasons for the latter are deeply significant and will be followed up in a subsequent article).
  3. Cryptocurrency success will hasten the end of the dollar monopoly in global commerce. Indeed, at current trending, changes in trading mechanics may speedily evolve to the point that such “reserve currencies” no longer have a function at all. Analysts once speculated that it was only a matter of time before the Chinese yuan displaced the dollar, in the same way that the dollar displaced the pound. The edifice which supports the concept of a “global reserve currency” is weakening. The latter’s demise will have significant implications regarding reducing political influence over global finance, as well as nations’ abilities to run longterm balance of payments deficits, current account deficits and borrow at little or no interest.
  4. Cryptocurrencies as an ecosystem—assuming the current direction of evolution continues—will increasingly constrain, redirect and set the parameters to government macroeconomic policies. Certainly sound alternatives to fiat currencies will drive the latter to the periphery of commercial life, concomitantly reducing the number of tools the nation state has at its disposal to regulate or respond to changing economic conditions. This especially means setting meaningful interest rates. Above all, it means that government financial engagement can no longer be a rule unto itself, it will have to engage by the same principles as everyone else. A level playing field here has dramatic implications—and will again be picked up in a subsequent article.
  5. Cryptocurrencies represent a wider range of disruptive elements affecting the commercial ecosystem. Among the most direct is the ability to raise finance or enter into other commercial transactions with little to no red tape, intrusive regulation or political interference. In short it de-politicises, de-institutionalises and de-centralises investment and payment options, while retaining many of the protective and other beneficial aspects present in traditional finance.
  6. Cryptocurrencies offer rapid commercial advances enfranchising the one- third of the global population who do not have a bank account—but do have a mobile phone—and concomitantly enable business that currently cannot accept electronic forms of payment to move into digital commerce. In the way that cellular communication revolutionised sub-saharan Africa in the early 2000s, so we may anticipate some parallel here as regards ease and ubiquity of payment “wallets” and their positive impact on developing economy dynamics.
  7. Cryptocurrency potential increasingly offers a route to security and liquid asset preservation/growth in a world where fundamentals are being shifted out of all recognition; driven by economic policies predicated firstly on the priority of COVID management and secondly on the move away from rules-based multilateralism towards bilateralism. Global cooperation is yielding to the demands of national integrity, security of supply and highly aggressive competition in key enabling technologies such as 5G, AI, quantum computing and encryption, which themselves will have as profound impact on cryptocurrency evolution as the creation of the bitcoin itself.
Against the backdrop of the essential limits of fiat currencies, current geo- macroeconomic policies and a new emerging world order, cryptocurrencies offer vast potential:
  • An efficiency facilitating frictionless commerce/investment.
  • A medium of stability against the backdrop of uncertainty and inflation.
  • Increased security in value transfer and wealth management.
  • Optimum autonomy in an increasing intrusive climate.
  • “Cash” asset preservation/growth in a world of negative interest rates.
In all this we may well have come full circle to 1694 and the stability and security that the establishment of the Bank of England was intended to entrench—but now it is now de-centralised finance that will get us there.
Article source:
submitted by JamesFXF to FXF [link] [comments]

Private key mining problem

It's not a secret anymore that people are trying to mine private keys.
Even if chances are astronomically low to find the right key, there is a chance. With a graphic card mining rig, a miner, with an investment of a few hundred $, can produce more than 300MH/s. Now imagine if someone is dedicating even more resources to find a private key.
As I said, chances are low to achieve that. That's the beauty of mathematics. But there is a chance, and right now, people are trying to do so.
There should be a way to prevent such behavior.
I was thinking of a solution to this problem:
A wallet should have a "wallet token/coin". When a user wants to make a transaction, let's say with Bitcoin, at first, it would need to make a transaction using the "wallet token". The "wallet token" has a private key of its own. The private key is a hash generated using a username, password, pin, and timestamp. The transaction would be automatically directed to the connected node if it's not specified differently. This transaction would produce a tx id. Just as now, when the user wants to make the Bitcoin transaction, the user would need to insert his private key. In this case, besides the private key, the wallet would ask for the tx id done with the "wallet token". Those two hashes would produce a unique, more extended, and one-time use, private key. This last private key would enable the wanted transaction.
The private key miner would need to make countless transactions before even being able to find out if he got the right private key. Economically, it would not be profitable, unlike now, when he can effortlessly guess and try if the private key "fits" until it succeds.
The "wallet token" would be created with some of these mechanisms:
  1. Proof of work - mining like BTC
  2. Proof of ownership - every wallet would produce small amounts of tokens over time.
  3. Proof of transaction - Every transaction you do, you generate a new token for future transactions.
This is not a light and user-friendly solution. Its sole purpose is enhanced security.
I'm not a techy guy. I don't know if this would require a completely new blockchain or it could be implemented in already existing wallets, coins, and protocols.
Even if enormous numbers are reliable enough to keep our cryptocurrencies safe, faster and more efficient computers are being built every day. At this rate of progress, it not hard to imagine a super ASIC that could be able to mine a private key if left a few years to do its job. Not to mention the threat that quantum computers represent.
I hope this will open a discussion in the crypto community to find the best solution to this problem. Or at least someone could explain why this is not an option or is a bad idea.
Thank you Satoshi!
submitted by BlueBloodStrawberry to SatoshisPhilosophy [link] [comments]

Google has created a 50 qbit computer and executed an algorithm in minutes where it would have ran for 20,000 years using a normal computer. Cryptography will soon (in maybe 10 years) be impacted by quantum computing. What kind of algorithm would you use to face that tremendous computational power?

I think in a relatively near future, Google will be able to solve any mathematical problem used in crypto in a matter of minutes.
Bitcoin's mining system is based on a mathematical problem solvable in exponential time, which is comparable to a simple linear time algorithm for a qComputer iirc.
How would you avoid the Google's supremacy over cryptocurrencies?
What kind of algorithm is solvable in exponential time for a quantum computer?
submitted by mourad1081 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Quantum Computing VS Bitcoin  Exchanges Form “Securities” Council  Dollar Cost Average Will Quantum Computers BREAK Bitcoin Someday? (Explained For Beginners) Quantum Computing and Bitcoin (Vitalik Buterin, November 2013) Is Quantum Computing a threat to Bitcoin? Bitcoin and Quantum Computing  Are Quantum Computers a Threat to Bitcoin ?

How Does Quantum Computing Affect Bitcoin? Quantum computers are exceptionally skilled at solving cryptographic calculations. To fully understand the threat that this poses to Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies), we should first rehash public keys, private keys, and how Bitcoin links the two together. A Quick Bitcoin Refresher. Every Bitcoin wallet has a private key and a public key. Your ... The quantum computing threat to bitcoin is equivalent to asteroid mining threat for gold. ... the contents of a bitcoin wallet can be emptied, which would have a devastating effect in the public’s confidence in bitcoin, leading to crash in price. According to bitcoin developer and Blockstream co-founder Peter Wuille, bitcoin will still retain some degree of cryptographic security even after ... No classical computer could run such algorithm, so there’s currently not one computer which could hack your Bitcoin wallet. Quantum computers, instead, are immensely more powerful than the classical ones. Instead of working with series of binary states called bits (that can be 0 or 1) like classical computers, which ultimately are translated into information, they use quantum bits (qubits ... A Bitcoin wallet with nearly $700 million is up for grabs — but anyone intending to be a “crypto thief” and nab it will have to crack the password first. Crypto Twitter user Alon Gal has put out a call to his 29,900 followers for solutions on how to gain access to 69370.22 Bitcoin , worth roughly $695.4 million as of this writing. According to the Sept. 8 post from Gal, the wallet has ... Quantum computer may not help unlock lost Bitcoin, it is believed, at least not yet. A bitcoin wallet worth $700k is up for grabs to anyone who can crack the password which seems to be lost. Alon Gal requests for a Quantum computer in his tweet, to aid cracking the password and this has brewed controversies as to the security of the Bitcoin wallet.

[index] [34704] [43951] [5066] [45315] [40292] [16480] [32236] [5795] [3275] [15807]

Quantum Computing VS Bitcoin Exchanges Form “Securities” Council Dollar Cost Average

Quantum Computing VS Bitcoin Exchanges Form “Securities” Council Dollar Cost Average ... Phoenix Lightning Wallet Adds Tor - Duration: 20:33. BTC Sessions 1,040 views. 20:33 . Reasons Why ... This is a topic that has been covered quite a bit but it is VERY TECHNICAL. So in this video I'll cover the potential risks from quantum computers that Bitcoin and other similar cryptocurrencies face! For more on blockchain & cryptocurrency, visit Subscribe for daily crypto videos : Bitcoin will be the new store of value and crypto will be the new technology evolution and I want to be a part of that trough this channel ... PROOF QUANTUM COMPUTING WILL RUN ROBOTS A.I. BITCOIN XRP ALTCOINS! Now have the Store Open: enjoy