Quantum computing has been a crypto boogie man for as long as the space existed.
A couple of points:
1. When we have quantum computing, the whole idea of modern cryptography will be broken. You wouldn’t be able to securely log in to your broker for example to check your 401k.
Blockchain and connection to your bank both rely on the same building blocks (public key cryptography).
Not to deflect (see point #2) but any (state) actor with such capability would not bother with blockchain bc it has much larger targets (other state actor secrets).
In other words, choosing to attack a blockchain with that kind of capability is like buying a plane ticket because you like free peanuts.
2. I don’t know who the guest was in your conference, but cryptographers have already been working on algorithms that produce something called quantum resistant signatures—the cryptographic signatures that would allow us to continue secure our networks (and most importantly for the state actors keep their secrets).
So to sum up, yes quantum computing could break blockchain (and almost every other aspect of your online security) but quantum-resistant signature will most likely bring everything back to status quo.
There is a whole new area of research called post-quantum cryptography that aims to address the threat posed by quantum computers.
Thank you. I was going to put simply what you more elegantly explained. I was thinking just of the banking system itself. With this already posited in Goldeneye (James Bond) when instead of quantum computing an EMP bomb was used to destroy all records in London after effectively stealing from the Bank of England. The only difference here is qantum could break the bank of everything!
Thank you both for your comments. I am aware that with quantum computing all crypto will be broken and even 30 years ago when I was at university, people in our maths department were thinking about post-quantum cryptography.
Yes, with the seven of quantum computing there will be a window when our safety will go out the window m. And my guess is that many people will lose a lot of money then.
The point I am trying to make is to contradict crypto maximalists who are adamant that cryptocurrencies and other blockchain-based technologies will take over because they provide the ultimate safety and cannot be hacked. Nothing is ever that safe. Everything can and will be hacked eventually. It is just a question of how long it takes to do so.
In the link above NIST says it will issue its post quantum signature standards as soon as next year. They will be backward compatible.
Considering the stakes and the potential the level of devastation, I don’t think we are ok with any type of window where the security of nation states can have any lapses.
It takes a fraction of a second in many ways to penetrate and permanently compromise information.
In other words we all (and that includes crypto) will be ok.
Because of the public nature of these standards, developers will be able to integrate them and thereby upgrade their systems.
You might be trying to "contradict crypto maximalists" but your argument is massively flawed - as Umed Saidov explained clearly *the entire modern digital security paradigm* would, in your scenario, be compromised. So, although your scenario is feasible it is highly unlikely because too much research and motivation lies with every global participant to ensure it does not occur.
You decided to apply this doom-mongering to the crypto community but it’s actually more applicable to all the investment assets that you do actually believe in. It all goes to zero in this eventuality.
Anyway, it might be wise for you to make your posts on crypto infrequent because it’s clear you haven’t got the breadth of research, or the necessary lack of bias, to serve your readers in any respect on blockchain subjects.
Joachim,
It is good to see a post about blockchain.
Quantum computing has been a crypto boogie man for as long as the space existed.
A couple of points:
1. When we have quantum computing, the whole idea of modern cryptography will be broken. You wouldn’t be able to securely log in to your broker for example to check your 401k.
Blockchain and connection to your bank both rely on the same building blocks (public key cryptography).
Not to deflect (see point #2) but any (state) actor with such capability would not bother with blockchain bc it has much larger targets (other state actor secrets).
In other words, choosing to attack a blockchain with that kind of capability is like buying a plane ticket because you like free peanuts.
2. I don’t know who the guest was in your conference, but cryptographers have already been working on algorithms that produce something called quantum resistant signatures—the cryptographic signatures that would allow us to continue secure our networks (and most importantly for the state actors keep their secrets).
So to sum up, yes quantum computing could break blockchain (and almost every other aspect of your online security) but quantum-resistant signature will most likely bring everything back to status quo.
There is a whole new area of research called post-quantum cryptography that aims to address the threat posed by quantum computers.
https://www.nist.gov/video/post-quantum-cryptography-good-bad-and-powerful
https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography
Thank you. I was going to put simply what you more elegantly explained. I was thinking just of the banking system itself. With this already posited in Goldeneye (James Bond) when instead of quantum computing an EMP bomb was used to destroy all records in London after effectively stealing from the Bank of England. The only difference here is qantum could break the bank of everything!
Thank you both for your comments. I am aware that with quantum computing all crypto will be broken and even 30 years ago when I was at university, people in our maths department were thinking about post-quantum cryptography.
Yes, with the seven of quantum computing there will be a window when our safety will go out the window m. And my guess is that many people will lose a lot of money then.
The point I am trying to make is to contradict crypto maximalists who are adamant that cryptocurrencies and other blockchain-based technologies will take over because they provide the ultimate safety and cannot be hacked. Nothing is ever that safe. Everything can and will be hacked eventually. It is just a question of how long it takes to do so.
In the link above NIST says it will issue its post quantum signature standards as soon as next year. They will be backward compatible.
Considering the stakes and the potential the level of devastation, I don’t think we are ok with any type of window where the security of nation states can have any lapses.
It takes a fraction of a second in many ways to penetrate and permanently compromise information.
In other words we all (and that includes crypto) will be ok.
Because of the public nature of these standards, developers will be able to integrate them and thereby upgrade their systems.
You might be trying to "contradict crypto maximalists" but your argument is massively flawed - as Umed Saidov explained clearly *the entire modern digital security paradigm* would, in your scenario, be compromised. So, although your scenario is feasible it is highly unlikely because too much research and motivation lies with every global participant to ensure it does not occur.
You decided to apply this doom-mongering to the crypto community but it’s actually more applicable to all the investment assets that you do actually believe in. It all goes to zero in this eventuality.
Anyway, it might be wise for you to make your posts on crypto infrequent because it’s clear you haven’t got the breadth of research, or the necessary lack of bias, to serve your readers in any respect on blockchain subjects.