Eehm guys? (bottom right)

>>3409082
delete this normie, bait, leftist propaganda now

Haven't even looked but I bet it is Clickbait

"It's been invented....... but it is still impossible :^)"

I'm interested to see how it works out in Scotland as only resource rich states have tried it so far.
That is what you are talking about right because this isn't very clear at all.

>>3409082
This basically means that theoretical paper was published explaining a new algo or something. Practically QMC? 20 years

>>3409103
Yeah thought some of you might tlak about that or the elon musk thong but really I meant the quantum computer advances

Isnt quantum computing the end of cryptocurrencies (as we know em)?

>>3409129
You're trying to decide whether to be afraid of information you don't understand anything about, when even the most educated, the most informed, and the most active in the sector couldn't give you a good answer about what the fuck is going on.
If they don't know, what kind of clue could you have?

>>3409129
Have a read instead of having irrational fear https://www.research.ibm.com/ibm-q/
Q-comps have existed for awhile, they have been commercially available for ~3 months. All the talk about them is caused by two factors:
Mainstream media doesn't do any research so parrots false information
Experts aren't talking about "will they exist" but about how to get the cost down that the power up

Q-comps being used to break encryption is bad news for everyone, banks, traders, companies and governments. All of these will see security breaches as time goes by just as they all saw security breaches while internet was in it's infancy.
In future when something worries you research it and get a working knowledge of the situation. P.S. we will never own Q-comps no matter how cheap they get because they are useless for 99% of what PCs are used for.

>>3409082
>Top right
Thanks for letting us know what sci-fi authors have been saying for 30+ years.

>>3409082
Sweet, how do I get Scottland to start sending me some of that universal income?

>>3409155
>>3409205
Im not scared because I only invest what I can afford to lose, I'm curious becauae I've read manu times that QComputers could lead to the end of crypto currencies

>>3409291
If q-comps are used maliciously what makes you think your digital bank account is secure?

>>3409205
Also, IBM is working with blockchain technology, are they going to build BTC 2.0 with their money, technology, know how and contacts/power?

IBM isnt exactly the good guy historically speaking

>>3409205
The quantum computers that exist right now can only do some specific things (quantum annealing), and it's actually debatable whether they do those specific things better than regular ASICs could. The types of quantum computers that exist right now can't be used for breaking encryption.

>>3409326
That's good I guess
Some other anon said that in 20 years they could
If in 20 years we dont have an unlimited source of power we'll be fucked anyway
And if we do, life would change in all aspects anyway

>new equation explains quantum chaos
Lmao. Who are they gonna bait with this?

>>3409326
How isn't brute-forcing an optimization problem?

Quantum computers that currently exist are debatable if they're even technically "quantum computers" at all and they're definitely not the quantum computers that make cryptologists post pink wojacks.

In any case, quantum resistant algorithms already exist. A simple hardfork and any coin can add quantum resistance if there's ever a need.

>>3409303
A key to break encryption doesn't mean you automatically get read/write access on every computer, like bank computers. It means that if you were intercepting a bank computer's internet connection, you could decrypt or rewrite that connection, but that requires you to physically intercept its connection first, and for that connection to have information in it that influences an account.

But public blockchains where money is only controlled by public signatures that can be broadcast by anyone are super easy game.

If there existed commercial quantum computers that could break encryption / fake signatures, then if they were super expensive, you'd expect some rogue employee to sneak in a few key-cracking jobs by now, and for the evidence of that fact to trickle out and then suddenly shock the entire industry into a y2k-tier fix-everything emergency.

>>3409357
Quantum annealing only works well for specific types of problems. It's not a cheat code that cracks everything.
To crack currently-popular asymmetric cryptography (RSA or ECC, used by most cryptocurrencies), you need to use Shor's algorithm. No one has built a quantum computer capable of using Shor's algorithm on numbers higher than classical computers are capable of simulating it on.

>>3409382
Could quantum computers make crypto even stroger then?

>>3409382
>In any case, quantum resistant algorithms already exist. A simple hardfork and any coin can add quantum resistance if there's ever a need.
Personally I expect there to be a lot of confusion if/when the evidence of quantum computer crypto-cracking starts to trickle out. One day it's a rumor where a few people claim they had money stolen from their wallets and everyone else assumes they're lying or their computers were infected with malware to begin with. Next week evidence comes out that quantum computers are being used to steal crypto. Devs come up with a plan to add quantum resistance, but also start talking about reversing transactions. People send big deposits to exchanges, cash out, and then complain to the devs that their crypto was stolen and ask for that transaction to be included in the upcoming rollback. The rollback happens and either tons of legitimate transactions get rolled back too, or tons of people are left without their stolen funds, all because there's no way to tell apart which were really stolen by quantum computers. The confusion and rollbacks will cause prices to drop for a while, but the system will recover.

Personally I think it's worth hedging some money now into cryptocurrencies that rely on quantum-resistant algorithms, and encouraging existing projects to support quantum-resistant algorithms optionally. (Unless major efficiency break-throughs are made soon, I doubt Bitcoin or Ethereum will switch to quantum-resistant by default before quantum computers are a problem because current quantum-resistant algorithms are a lot less efficient.)

>>3409491
>intercepting a bank computer's internet connection
Couldn't you attack the net banking API all banks support these days?

>Shor's algorithm
Interesting, thanks for the info anon.

>>3409103
>fan of UBI
>can't tell left from right
Living meme.

>>3409535
>net banking API
Let's say we're talking about a banking API that's protected by HTTPS, and all requests made over the HTTPS-encrypted connection need to have a password (or an opaque session token / API key, which is pretty much just a password).
Quantum computers just mean that HTTPS connection is only as good as HTTP. So if you're in the proper position to eavesdrop on the connection, then you can harvest the password from the connection, and then make your own API requests with that password to transfer money. But if you're not in a position to eavesdrop on the connection, then the quantum computer isn't much of a help at getting the password.

>>3409597
Now, if the banking API was based around using client certificates instead of passwords, *and* you knew the public key belonging to the user you wanted to impersonate, then a quantum computer is a skeleton key that lets you right in. But client-side certificates aren't that common and most servers generally don't announce the public keys of their users to others. There are many possible situations where a quantum computer allows a hacker with some access to get more access (the hacker has access to a backup of a server / has read-only access to a server with the public keys of clients), but the quantum computer in most non-blockchain cases doesn't just let them in through the front door.

>>3409597
Thanks again for the insight quantum-anon.

>>3409082
>scotland will begin funding universal basic income experiments
What the FUCK does this have to do with science
also
>muh generic elon musk statement about things he has no idea about
Fucking cancer, this is why science has stagnated over the past years

>>3409082
I've already got 20/15 vision with lasik

>>3409531

Actually, there is a bit of quantum-resistance in most cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin and Ethereum at least) that's worth mentioning.

If an address has never sent a transaction, then money stored in that address can not be stolen by a quantum computer. For funds to be stolen by a quantum computer, the attacker has to know your public key. Addresses only have a hash of your public key. Transactions cause an address's public key to be published.

So if you want to store some funds long-term and have them be quantum-resistant, put them in a fresh address that money has never been moved out of.

It does mean that to get the money out of the address, you'll have to make a transaction that publishes the public key, which can be a problem if quantum computers become popular, but hopefully the transaction can confirm and get all of your money out of the address before anyone with a quantum computer can crack your address's public key.

>>3409715
That is very useful information, I'll get into the habit for storing 10% of my gains this way.
Am I right in thinking I could make multiple deposits and only need a new address after I made a withdrawal?

>>3409771
Right. Sending to an address doesn't reveal the public key of the destination.