ITT we speculate how long before a whale buy's a quantum

>>2857768
I own iota, you're a retard, isn't NEO quantum proof too?

BTC has protection against quantum computers.

The jump from 1,000 qubits to 2,000 will allow researchers to grapple with greater quantities of data and more complex problems. According to D-Wave, the quantum 2000Q is capable of outperforming “classical servers” by factors of between 1,000 and 10,000.

>>2857768
Cryptography is only as strong as computational power is weak.

>whale
Never
>bank wanting to hurt crypto
Maybe

The big catch with quantum resistance is it hasn't been tested. If someone does go after crypto with a Qcomp I would expect them to break it a couple of times as devs on both sides learnt new tricks.

>>2857768
Lol. Quantum computers still aren't powerful enough to solve Bitcoin private keys.

The people still spreading that myth are newfags and fucking idiots.

lol>>2857875
It is simply a matter of time until recently developed hardware outpaces previously developed software.

>>2857768
I think there's much bigger problems than the failure of Bitcoin when quantum computing comes of age.

>>2857768

D-wave isn't real, if you want up to date stuff about Quantum Computation and its progress, I'd follow scott aaronsons blog, he is the foremost thinker in the field and gives great updates.

I think the issue with bitcoin and these other coins is they all label them as 'trustless' because I don't have a human I have to trust, but they aren't actually trustless because I'm forced to trust computation itself to secure my shit. Most of these coins would not stand up to Shorrs Algorithm, and even IOTA/NEO are gimmicks as far as I can tell they aren't actually using post-quantum cryptography.

>t. PHD student in mathematics studying this area.

File: 0987098.jpg (17KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x200px

>>2857768

Why not hack the central banks instead?