Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: Google on track for quantum computer breakthrough by end of 2017 - "The company is testing a 20-qubit processor – its most powerful quantum chip yet – and is on target to have a working 49-qubit chip /r/technology
Can a person use quantum computers to break bitcoin?
Newbie here. Not very familiar with bitcoin as of now, but really interested in this topic. I know this has probably been asked a dozen times already. But I’m not talking about using quantum computers to break the encryptions behind bitcoin - it’s impossible to do so with current technology, and by the time quantum computers can break bitcoin encryption, bitcoin would likely have upgraded to become quantum-resistant, anyway. Rather, I am talking about using quantum computers to mine bitcoin. If quantum computers can theoretically outperform classical ones, shouldn’t they be able to mine bitcoin at a significantly faster rate than usual? In addition, is it possible to do so with current quantum computer technology (like, for example, some guy uses IBM’s 53-qubit computer or Google’s 72-qubit Sycamore chip to do the job)? Of note, I know that bitcoin adjusts its mining difficulty every 2016 blocks or something, but I am thinking whether quantum computers can successfully zip-mine all those 2016 blocks before the difficulty is adjusted?
If all of the Bitcoin network spent its hashpower generating new Bitcoin wallets, how long would it take to find an address with funds on it?
Let's assume the hash rate grows at a predefined rate based on the previous years' growth. And the number of Bitcoin wallets are expected to grow at the same rate as well. How many years would it take to find a collision?
Are Proof of Work Blockchains like Bitcoin Cryptographically Safe Against Light-Based or Quantum Hardware?
Basically, I found on another thread here that leaked research from the Skynet project that is developing some type of Light-based hardware for blockchains aside from their blockchain chips and IoT blockchain network. Didn't see very good responses about any Photonic-based cryptography so wanted to try asking again. My questions:
People usually talk about Quantum Proof but the Field of Photonics seems to be possibly more advanced than quantum processors. Since Light-Based hardware is millions of times faster than conventional hardware, would Photonic ASICs be good at breaking public-key cryptography?
Is Ethereum or Bitcoin resistant to Photonic Proof of Work or Quantum Proof of Work given their current consensus models?
If so, what would be the ways to prevent it from happening?
Paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iBc9RJyuJm6cTt7XlIZM7sYXA4j7Frcm/view Project Reference: http://skynet.co/ "One of the possible research areas and implementations of Skynet is a single-node photonic RC design with the Inception core. This would enable the Skynet Core to use minimal power while processing millions of times faster than conventional hardware. One of the major problems in today’s computer science is the development of new hardware that could accelerate machine learning techniques. That hardware should be inherently fast, energy-efficient, and address information exchange bottlenecks present in now ubiquitous Von Neumann architecture. We will focus specifically on the so-called single-node photonic RC, which promises additional benefit of high-speed information processing and a solution to the high-degree network connectivity problem, based on complex nonlinear delay dynamics." Although it's really tempting please don't shill projects. There's got to be a couple cryptographers in this subreddit.
Is there a mechanism in place to stop someone with malicious intent from taking all the possible bitcoin addresses?
What is stopping someone from putting a massive amount of computing power at just claiming available addresses until they are depleted in an effort to sabotage bitcoin? I know there are a lot of them, but this would seem like a big worry if you want to use this technology for decades.
Ethereum. Before I explain why, I need you to understand something. Bitcoin and Ethereum are at two completely different stages within their potential. They also do not share the exact same mission; therefore, you do have to understand their differences to form an opinion about which one has the biggest use. Before we look at the coins in detail, let's start with the potential ROI (100% = 2x Original Investment). Bitcoin’s current market cap is $193,165,354,468 in order for you to make 100% this number would need to double to just under $400 Billion. Ethereum’s current market cap is $44,715,990,083 , roughly 1/5th of Bitcoins. In order for you to make 100%, the price would need to increase to just under $90 Billion. - This is obviously more probable. This will not serve as the only variable in making a decision, we now need to break down their uses and differences. Bitcoin What is Bitcoin? A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without the burdens of going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as honest nodes control the most CPU power on the network, they can generate the longest chain and outpace any attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcasted on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. Peer-to-Peer (P2P): is a technical way of saying computers (peers) that are connected together via the internet. Timestamps: are a sequence of characters that identify exactly when a certain event occurred, giving the exact time and date. Hashing: is the process of compacting large quantities of data into smaller fixed sizes. Proof-of-work: is the verification that the individual peer created the said hash Nodes: are computers that are connected to the blockchain Bitcoin is a first generation cryptocurrency, that was created in 2009 with the intention to become the currency of the internet. Its Applications Safe Haven Being that billions of people are under the control of a broke economy or volatile dictatorship, Bitcoin is beginning to become a medium in which people within underdeveloped countries feel as a more secure place to store their value. Remittances The current operation costs roughly $600B annually, all at the expense of separated families. Bitcoin can now serve as a tool that operates the exact same way and only costs 1/10th of the price. A transaction on the Bitcoin network also processes faster therefore giving the people a strong reason to make the switch. Currency Bitcoin is recognized as an asset, but can also be identified as an efficient currency in which people can buy and exchange with. With this being an application of Bitcoin, as the market continues to decrease in volatility, the use for Bitcoin will increase within businesses and everyday people that transact on a daily basis. These are just a few, but for the sake of answer length, let’s move onto some of the scalability issues with Bitcoin that hinder my decision of choosing Bitcoin over Ethereum. Bothering Issues with Bitcoin Energy A study from Digiconomist found that each transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain uses 236 KWh worth of electricity, this amount is enough to power 8 U.S households for an entire day. Scalability Energy consumption will hinder the scalability issues of Bitcoin, however the other issue that arises with POW mining is that with the increase in cost associated with mining BTC it is less economical to mine Bitcoin. This would limit the distributed nodes (miners) globally and allow a larger percentage of control to the dominant mining pools / farms. This would lead to a more centralized blockchain, where they can change the rules of BTC as they please. The supply of Bitcoin is finite, capped at 21 million. Eventually (currently predicted for 2140) Bitcoin's supply will run out. Once this happens, miners will no longer receive rewards for completing blocks but instead will be given fees. The fees will be drastically high in relative terms, and people will stop using the blockchain. Also, if miners decide that this is uneconomical for them to process the transactions and use their computing power elsewhere the speed of transactions for Bitcoin will drastically slow down, rendering one of the fundamental values of a Bitcoin (speed) useless. Blue chip Companies This is more so for all cryptocurrencies, but Bitcoin in particular. It’s not a matter of if but a matter of when a blue-chip company such as Facebook, Amazon or Google decides to implement their own cryptocurrency. Another possibility is a potential ‘world coin’ which global governments will all agree on using, this may seem unrealistic but it is definitely not impossible and many benefits would arise from having such a currency. Quantum Computing Bitcoin is said to be Quantum resistant, on the whitepaper it mentions that: ‘To compensate for increasing hardware speed and varying interest in running nodes over time, the proof-of-work difficulty is determined by a moving average targeting an average number of blocks per hour. If they're generated too fast, the difficulty increases.’ This may seem quantum resistant but it is important to understand that the difficulty is changed every 10 minutes and this is more than enough time for QC to mine all of Bitcoin’s remaining coins. Bitcoin Bubble The last point of this section is to recognize that the Bitcoin bubble could pop loud enough to crash the market. Due to a whole lot of hype, and even more speculative and uneducated buyers, Bitcoin could face a peak in which a simple spark Ethereum What is Ethereum? Ethereum is an open source platform with the mission to build and inspire next-generation decentralized applications. In other words, the applications being built on the Ethereum network would have no middle men. Users are able to interact safely with social and financial systems to transact peer to peer, therefore opening a new realm of opportunity within decentralized development on specifically the exchange of value. Like the Bitcoin network exchanges Bitcoin, applications within the Ethereum network would exchange ETHER. Therefore, making the Ethereum network have its own digital currency or, cryptocurrency that these decentralized applications would run on. On the Ethereum network, developers are able to build these decentralized applications simply, within this seemingly complicated new technology. Think of it as Shopify or Volusion, these are centralized networks in which users/developers can build e-commerce stores more efficiently and cost effectively. Ethereum is similar in this aspect, the network was essentially created to assist and fuel the growth of decentralized blockchain applications within its network. Smart Contracts Now, what Ethereum is based on, is a thing called “Smart Contracts” Developers are extremely excited about this tool, a smart contract is similar to how it sounds, it’s a digital contract that self-executes… Think of it as a virtual vending machine. A smart contract is a digital contract between two people in which the technology or tool handles the management, performance, enforcement and payment of the agreement. The smart contract has its own digital bank account of ETHER and settles once the product is received or the service is completed therefore greatly improving the efficiency of data tracking, payment processing and user friendliness of each decentralized application. Let’s dive into an example Music The first age of the internet brought quite a bit of disruption to the music industry… Idk if you knew, but if you we’re a songwriter 25 years ago and produced a hit song that got a million singles you would acquire royalties of up to $50,000. Now if you were to produce a hit song that gets a million streams you don’t get $50,000, you get $45… Enough to cover the first round at the bar. In result, musicians are now finding other ways to produce revenue with their music. One being the utilization of a blockchain ecosystem like Ethereum. Music applications are now being built for musicians to reclaim their content, smart contracts are being implemented into the music itself, therefore the music protects the intellectual property rights of the artist. You want to listen to the song? It’s free… or maybe a few micro pennies to download. You want to put the song in your video or movie? Make it your ringtone? These each cost a different price and presented at the point of purchase would be its underlying IP rights for the use of that piece of music. Musicians are absolutely hyped about this because now, the song becomes a business. It’s out there on this platform marketing itself, protecting the rights of the author and because the song has a payment system; in the sense of a bank account, all of the money then flows back to the artist, and they control the industry rather than these powerful intermediaries. This concept could apply not only to just songwriters but any creator of content, from art, to inventions, to scientific discoveries or the work from independent journalists. There are endless industries in which people do not gain fair compensation in which the underlying technology of Ethereum could benefit in a big way. Other examples: · A smart contract can be created to pay a worker for every hour they work, they log their hours on the blockchain and then after verification the funds are instantly transferred to them · Buying goods internationally can be tracked and verified – reducing fraud. · Property buying can be facilitated through the contract · Every industry that has a contract in place will be able to use the blockchain of Ethereum It is also worth noting that Ethereum is also a lot quicker than Bitcoin, average block time being 15 seconds for Ethereum opposed to 10 minutes for Bitcoin. Personally, I am invested into both. If I HAD to choose, like I said it would be Ethereum simply because of where it is now in comparison to its potential as well as its very transparent, direct, opportunistic mission towards the hosting of decentralized blockchain applications.
I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the third part of the series introducing Quantum resistant blockchains.
Part 1 and part 2 will give you usefull basic blockchain knowledge that is not explained in this part. Part 1 here Part 2 here Quantum resistant blockchains explained. - How would quantum computers pose a threat to blockchain? - Expectations in the field of quantum computer development. - Quantum resistant blockchains - Why is it easier to change cryptography for centralized systems such as banks and websites than for blockchain? - Conclusion The fact that whatever is registered on a blockchain can’t be tampered with is one of the great reasons for the success of blockchain. Looking ahead, awareness is growing in the blockchain ecosystem that quantum computers might cause the need for some changes in the cryptography that is used by blockchains to prevent hackers from forging transactions. How would quantum computers pose a threat to blockchain? First, let’s get a misconception out of the way. When talking about the risk quantum computers could pose for blockchain, some people think about the risk of quantum computers out-hashing classical computers. This, however, is not expected to pose a real threat when the time comes. This paper explains why: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10377.pdf "In this section, we investigate the advantage a quantum computer would have in performing the hashcash PoW used by Bitcoin. Our findings can be summarized as follows: Using Grover search, a quantum computer can perform the hashcash PoW by performing quadratically fewer hashes than is needed by a classical computer. However, the extreme speed of current specialized ASIC hardware for performing the hashcash PoW, coupled with much slower projected gate speeds for current quantum architectures, essentially negates this quadratic speedup, at the current difficulty level, giving quantum computers no advantage. Future improvements to quantum technology allowing gate speeds up to 100GHz could allow quantum computers to solve the PoW about 100 times faster than current technology. However, such a development is unlikely in the next decade, at which point classical hardware may be much faster, and quantum technology might be so widespread that no single quantum enabled agent could dominate the PoW problem." The real point of vulnerability is this: attacks on signatures wherein the private key is derived from the public key. That means that if someone has your public key, they can also calculate your private key, which is unthinkable using even today’s most powerful classical computers. So in the days of quantum computers, the public-private keypair will be the weak link. Quantum computers have the potential to perform specific kinds of calculations significantly faster than any normal computer. Besides that, quantum computers can run algorithms that take fewer steps to get to an outcome, taking advantage of quantum phenomena like quantum entanglement and quantum superposition. So quantum computers can run these certain algorithms that could be used to make calculations that can crack cryptography used today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic-curve_cryptography#Quantum_computing_attacks and https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/598.pdf Most blockchains use Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) cryptography. Using a quantum computer, Shor's algorithm can be used to break ECDSA. (See for reference: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301141 and pdf: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0301141.pdf ) Meaning: they can derive the private key from the public key. So if they got your public key (and a quantum computer), then they got your private key and they can create a transaction and empty your wallet. RSA has the same vulnerability while RSA will need a stronger quantum computer to be broken than ECDSA. At this point in time, it is already possible to run Shor’s algorithm on a quantum computer. However, the amount of qubits available right now makes its application limited. But it has been proven to work, we have exited the era of pure theory and entered the era of practical applications:
2001: First execution of Shor's algorithm at IBM's Almaden Research Center and Stanford University. The paper here: (Experimental realization of Shor's quantum factoring algorithm using nuclear magnetic resonance Lieven M. K. Vandersypen, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112176 )
So far Shor's algorithm has the most potential, but new algorithms might appear which are more efficient. Algorithms are another area of development that makes progress and pushes quantum computer progress forward. A new algorithm called Variational Quantum Factoring is being developed and it looks quite promising. " The advantage of this new approach is that it is much less sensitive to error, does not require massive error correction, and consumes far fewer resources than would be needed with Shor’s algorithm. As such, it may be more amenable for use with the current NISQ (Noisy Intermediate Scale Quantum) computers that will be available in the near and medium term." https://quantumcomputingreport.com/news/zapata-develops-potential-alternative-to-shors-factoring-algorithm-for-nisq-quantum-computers/ It is however still in development, and only works for 18 binary bits at the time of this writing, but it shows new developments that could mean that, rather than a speedup in quantum computing development posing the most imminent threat to RSA and ECDSA, a speedup in the mathematical developments could be even more consequential. More info on VQF here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.08927 It all comes down to this: when your public key is visible, which is always necessary to make transactions, you are at some point in the future vulnerable for quantum attacks. (This also goes for BTC, which uses the hash of the public key as an address, but more on that in the following articles.) If you would have keypairs based on post quantum cryptography, you would not have to worry about that since in that case not even a quantum computer could derive your private key from your public key. The conclusion is that future blockchains should be quantum resistant, using post-quantum cryptography. It’s very important to realize that post quantum cryptography is not just adding some extra characters to standard signature schemes. It’s the mathematical concept that makes it quantum resistant. to become quantm resistant, the algorithm needs to be changed. “The problem with currently popular algorithms is that their security relies on one of three hard mathematical problems: the integer factorization problem, the discrete logarithm problem or the elliptic-curve discrete logarithm problem. All of these problems can be easily solved on a sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor's algorithm. Even though current, publicly known, experimental quantum computers lack processing power to break any real cryptographic algorithm, many cryptographers are designing new algorithms to prepare for a time when quantum computing becomes a threat.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography Expectations in the field of quantum computer development. To give you an idea what the expectations of quantum computer development are in the field (Take note of the fact that the type and error rate of the qubits is not specified in the article. It is not said these will be enough to break ECDSA or RSA, neither is it said these will not be enough. What these articles do show, is that a huge speed up in development is expected.):
When will ECDSA be at risk? Estimates are only estimates, there are several to be found so it's hard to really tell. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has made a very thourough report on the development of quantum computing. The report came out in the end of 2018. They brought together a group of scientists of over 70 people from different interconnecting fields in quantum computing who, as a group, have come up with a close to 200 pages report on the development, funding, implications and upcoming challenges for quantum computing development. But, even though this report is one of the most thourough up to date, it doesn't make an estimate on when the risk for ECDSA or RSA would occur. They acknowledge this is quite impossible due to the fact there are a lot of unknowns and due to the fact that they have to base any findings only on publicly available information, obviously excluding any non available advancements from commercial companies and national efforts. So if this group of specialized scientists can’t make an estimate, who can make that assessment? Is there any credible source to make an accurate prediction? The conclusion at this point of time can only be that we do not know the answer to the big question "when". Now if we don't have an answer to the question "when", then why act? The answer is simple. If we’re talking about security, most take certainty over uncertainty. To answer the question when the threat materializes, we need to guess. Whether you guess soon, or you guess not for the next three decades, both are guesses. Going for certain means you'd have to plan for the worst, hope for the best. No matter how sceptical you are, having some sort of a plan ready is a responsible thing to do. Obviously not if you're just running a blog about knitting. But for systems that carry a lot of important, private and valuable information, planning starts today. The NAS describes it quite well. What they lack in guessing, they make up in advice. They have a very clear advice:
"Even if a quantum computer that can decrypt current cryptographic ciphers is more than a decade off, the hazard of such a machine is high enough—and the time frame for transitioning to a new security protocol is sufficiently long and uncertain—that prioritization of the development, standardization, and deployment of post-quantum cryptography is critical for minimizing the chance of a potential security and privacy disaster."
Another organization that looks ahead is the National Security Agency (NSA) They have made a threat assessment in 2015. In August 2015, NSA announced that it is planning to transition "in the not too distant future" (statement of 2015) to a new cipher suite that is resistant to quantum attacks. "Unfortunately, the growth of elliptic curve use has bumped up against the fact of continued progress in the research on quantum computing, necessitating a re-evaluation of our cryptographic strategy." NSA advised: "For those partners and vendors that have not yet made the transition to Suite B algorithms, we recommend not making a significant expenditure to do so at this point but instead to prepare for the upcoming quantum resistant algorithm transition.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_Suite_B_Cryptography#cite_note-nsa-suite-b-1 What these organizations both advice is to start taking action. They don't say "implement this type of quantum resistant cryptography now". They don't say when at all. As said before, the "when" question is one that is a hard one to specify. It depends on the system you have, the value of the data, the consequences of postponing a security upgrade. Like I said before: you just run a blog, or a bank or a cryptocurrency? It's an individual risk assesment that's different for every organization and system. Assesments do need to be made now though. What time frame should organisationds think about when changing cryptography? How long would it take to go from the current level of security to fully quantum resistant security? What changes does it require to handle bigger signatures and is it possible to use certain types of cryptography that require to keep state? Do your users need to act, or can al work be done behind the user interface? These are important questions that one should start asking. I will elaborate on these challenges in the next articles. Besides the unsnswered question on "when", the question on what type of quantum resistant cryptography to use is unanswered too. This also depends on the type of system you use. The NSA and NAS both point to NIST as the authority on developments and standardization of quantum resistant cryptography. NIST is running a competition right now that should end up in one or more standards for quantum resistant cryptography. The NIST competition handles criteria that should filter out a type of quantum resistant cryptography that is feasable for a wide range of systems. This takes time though. There are some new algorithms submitted and assessing the new and the more well known ones must be done thouroughly. They intend to wrap things up around 2022 - 2024. From a blockchain perspective it is important to notice that a specific type of quantum resistant cryptography is excluded from the NIST competition: Stateful Hash-Based Signatures. (LMS and XMSS) This is not because these are no good. In fact they are excelent and XMSS is accepted to be provable quantum resistant. It's due to the fact that implementations will need to be able to securely deal with the requirement to keep state. And this is not a given for most systems. At this moment NIST intends to approve both LMS and XMSS for a specific group of applications that can deal with the statefull properties. The only loose end at this point is an advice for which applications LMS and XMSS will be adviced and for what applications it is discouraged. These questions will be answered in the beginning of april this year: https://csrc.nist.gov/news/2019/stateful-hbs-request-for-public-comments This means that quite likely LMS and XMSS will be the first type of standardized quantum resistant cryptography ever. To give a small hint: keeping state, is pretty much a naturally added property of blockchain. Quantum resistant blockchains “Quantum resistant” is only used to describe networks and cryptography that are secure against any attack by a quantum computer of any size in the sense that there is no algorithm known that makes it possible for a quantum computer to break the applied cryptography and thus that system. Also, to determine if a project is fully quantum resistant, you would need to take in account not only how a separate element that is implemented in that blockchain is quantum resistant, but also the way it is implemented. As with any type of security check, there should be no backdoors, in which case your blockchain would be just a cardboard box with bulletproof glass windows. Sounds obvious, but since this is kind of new territory, there are still some misconceptions. What is considered safe now, might not be safe in the age of quantum computers. I will address some of these in the following chapters, but first I will elaborate a bit about the special vulnerability of blockchain compared to centralized systems. Why is it easier to change cryptography for centralized systems such as banks and websites than for blockchain? Developers of a centralized system can decide from one day to the other that they make changes and update the system without the need for consensus from the nodes. They are in charge, and they can dictate the future of the system. But a decentralized blockchain will need to reach consensus amongst the nodes to update. Meaning that the majority of the nodes will need to upgrade and thus force the blockchain to only have the new signatures to be valid. We can’t have the old signature scheme to be valid besides the new quantum resistant signature scheme. Because that would mean that the blockchain would still allow the use of vulnerable, old public- and private keys and thus the old vulnerable signatures for transactions. So at least the majority of the nodes need to upgrade to make sure that blocks which are constructed using the old rules and thus the old vulnerable signature scheme, are rejected by the network. This will eventually result in a fully upgraded network which only accepts the new post quantum signature scheme in transactions. So, consensus is needed. The most well-known example of how that can be a slow process is Bitcoin’s need to scale. Even though everybody agrees on the need for a certain result, reaching consensus amongst the community on how to get to that result is a slow and political process. Going quantum resistant will be no different, and since it will cause lesser performance due to bigger signatures and it will need hardware upgrades quite likely it will be postponed rather than be done fast and smooth due to lack of consensus. And because there are several quantum resistant signature schemes to choose from, agreement an automatic given. The discussion will be which one to use, and how and when to implement it. The need for consensus is exclusively a problem decentralized systems like blockchain will face. Another issue for decentralized systems that change their signature scheme, is that users of decentralized blockchains will have to manually transfe migrate their coins/ tokens to a quantum safe address and that way decouple their old private key and activate a new quantum resistant private key that is part of an upgraded quantum resistant network. Users of centralized networks, on the other hand, do not need to do much, since it would be taken care of by their centralized managed system. As you know, for example, if you forget your password of your online bank account, or some website, they can always send you a link, or secret question, or in the worst case they can send you mail by post to your house address and you would be back in business. With the decentralized systems, there is no centralized entity who has your data. It is you who has this data, and only you. So in the centralized system there is a central entity who has access to all the data including all the private accessing data, and therefore this entity can pull all the strings. It can all be done behind your user interface, and you probably wouldn’t notice a thing. And a third issue will be the lost addresses. Since no one but you has access to your funds, your funds will become inaccessible once you lose your private key. From that point, an address is lost, and the funds on that address can never be moved. So after an upgrade, those funds will never be moved to a quantum resistant address, and thus will always be vulnerable to a quantum hack. To summarize: banks and websites are centralized systems, they will face challenges, but decentralized systems like blockchain will face some extra challenges that won't apply for centralized systems.
Updating the signature scheme will need consensus in the sense that all nodes need to update after implementation of a quantum resistant signature scheme.
Users of blockchain will personally need to move their funds from old addresses to new quantum resistant addresses. You won't need to move your bank funds.
Lost addresses where people lost access to their funds will never be moved and stay vulnerable to quantum hacks. Blockchain doesn't know their users, can't communicate with them and won't be able to distinguish coins on lost addresses from coins from users who still have access but somehow have not migrated their coins after a quantum resistant update. So burning lost coins will be legally a big issue.
Quantum1Net comes in to create a new encryption system. Quantum1net. com also showed that Quantum computers are more efficient than traditional computers. Quantum computers are mechanical quantum counters, such as data processing and communications. It usually means doing a very long job in a matter of minutes or hours and is the best device for years to come. The process data (text or binary) is encrypted using the encryption key combination. Quantum1net; random encryption time and unique random number decryption system. Its aim is to provide faster and safer storage and transmission of data. Protect your important information from hackers.
The Quantum1Net mission Innovation is what drives the Quantum1Net team. They are determined to create an incredibly powerful technology, making it accessible, relevant and ultimately personal. Quantum1Net's mission is to create technology that enables and empowers. They have designed a product so secure that you don't need to worry about data security now or in the future. They are introducing an unparalleled level of technical innovation, combined with a system design that connects with the user to provide critical security, ease of use and peace of mind. Each year, Quantum1Net plans to reinvest about 20% of its revenue in research and development of new network security solutions to improve transmission options for people around the world who suffer from insecure data transmission. This will make Quantum1Net a significantly research-intensive company.
The laboratory prototype of the Quantum Random Number Generator from Quantum1Net, which has been under development since 2014, is based on a 1-bit optical device, which uses four photon detectors and a time to digital (TDC) converter to generate sets of perfect random numbers with time stamps. The quantum device consists of a source of interlaced photons and linear optical elements, which establishes the quantum system in the desired state. Two configurations have been developed to generate sets of 4 and 6 elements respectively. The result of TDC is the temporary queue, from which sets of unique random numbers or encryption keys can be requested, creating a real-time, on-demand encryption and decryption system.
Quantum1Net expects to continue development during the first half of 2018. Hiring additional developers in March 2018 should allow us to finalize the initial QEKG development the following month, supporting a limited Quantum1Net implementation in May. The final design for the hardware-based Quantum Key Generation should be completed in July, followed by the signing of manufacturing partners by the end of summer 2018. Autumn 2018 is when we expect to start running towards a global Quantum1Net release in January 2019. We expect the alpha version of the Quantum1Net file transmission platform initially during September, and a beta version in November 2018. The release version is likely to be completed the following month, paving the way for the global Quantum1Net publication targeted for Q1 2019.
First sale token: Silver symbol February 2018 - February 2018 Ethereum-base convertible to gold token at 20% discount Sale of the cap of 15 million euro Objectives Supports the change to the new office to centralize development Recruitment of new developers at the July 2018 meeting Limited Quantum1Net Quantum1Net release Second sale token: gold chip (closed) July 2018 based on Bitcoin, including QEK silver token investors get priority token investors get 18 million maximum sales of Objectives Offer a proof of concept of Our QEK, this token's quantum enclosed encrypted token Supports development of the hardware and software transmission platform Token (open) - January 2019 Bitcoin-based, QE enabled Silver Token investors who converted in July 2018 the sale can participate in the 5% discount - Silver Token investors who converted in July 2018 the sale can participate in the 5% discount Sale capped at 200 million euros Bounty0x ID: chemist32
The biggest announcement of the month was the new kind of decentralized exchange proposed by @jy-p of Company 0. The Community Discussions section considers the stakeholders' response. dcrd: Peer management and connectivity improvements. Some work for improved sighash algo. A new optimization that gives 3-4x faster serving of headers, which is great for SPV. This was another step towards multipeer parallel downloads – check this issue for a clear overview of progress and planned work for next months (and some engineering delight). As usual, codebase cleanup, improvements to error handling, test infrastructure and test coverage. Decrediton: work towards watching only wallets, lots of bugfixes and visual design improvements. Preliminary work to integrate SPV has begun. Politeia is live on testnet! Useful links: announcement, introduction, command line voting example, example proposal with some votes, mini-guide how to compose a proposal. Trezor: Decred appeared in the firmware update and on Trezor website, currently for testnet only. Next steps are mainnet support and integration in wallets. For the progress of Decrediton support you can track this meta issue. dcrdata: Continued work on Insight API support, see this meta issue for progress overview. It is important for integrations due to its popularity. Ongoing work to add charts. A big database change to improve sorting on the Address page was merged and bumped version to 3.0. Work to visualize agenda voting continues. Ticket splitting: 11-way ticket split from last month has voted (transaction). Ethereum support in atomicswap is progressing and welcomes more eyeballs. decred.org: revamped Press page with dozens of added articles, and a shiny new Roadmap page. decredinfo.com: a new Decred dashboard by lte13. Reddit announcement here. Dev activity stats for June: 245 active PRs, 184 master commits, 25,973 added and 13,575 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 2 to 10 developers per repository. (chart)
Hashrate: growth continues, the month started at 15 and ended at 44 PH/s with some wild 30% swings on the way. The peak was 53.9 PH/s. F2Pool was the leader varying between 36% and 59% hashrate, followed by coinmine.pl holding between 18% and 29%. In response to concerns about its hashrate share, F2Pool made a statement that they will consider measures like rising the fees to prevent growing to 51%. Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 94.7 DCR (+3.4). The price was steadily rising from 90.7 to 95.8 peaking at 98.1. Locked DCR grew from 3.68 to 3.81 million DCR, the highest value was 3.83 million corresponding to 47.87% of supply (+0.7% from previous peak). Nodes: there are 240 public listening and 115 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 57% on v1.2.0 (+12%), 25% on v1.1.2 (-13%), 14% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Note: the reported count of non-listening nodes has dropped significantly due to data reset at decred.eu. It will take some time before the crawler collects more data. On top of that, there is no way to exactly count non-listening nodes. To illustrate, an alternative data source, charts.dcr.farm showed 690 reachable nodes on Jul 1. Extraordinary event: 247361 and 247362 were two nearly full blocks. Normally blocks are 10-20 KiB, but these blocks were 374 KiB (max is 384 KiB).
Update from Obelisk: shipping is expected in first half of July and there is non-zero chance to meet hashrate target. Another Chinese ASIC spotted on the web: Flying Fish D18 with 340 GH/s at 180 W costing 2,200 CNY (~340 USD). (asicok.com – translated, also on asicminervalue) dcrASIC team posted a farewell letter. Despite having an awesome 16 nm chip design, they decided to stop the project citing the saturated mining ecosystem and low profitability for their potential customers.
Changenow announced the option to buy DCR with fiat.
TokenPride: "We are seeking feedback on the general setup of our payment processor. We have tried to make it simple and user friendly. 10% of all purchases made in Decred will be donated to the Decred Development fund - and we will be releasing original Decred designs in the future".
BlueYard Capital announced investment in Decred and the intent to be long term supporters and to actively participate in the network's governance. In an overview post they stressed core values of the project:
There are a few other remarkable characteristics that are a testament to the DNA of the team behind Decred: there was no sale of DCR to investors, no venture funding, and no payment to exchanges to be listed – underscoring that the Decred team and contributors are all about doing the right thing for long term (as manifested in their constitution for the project). The most encouraging thing we can see is both the quality and quantity of high calibre developers flocking to the project, in addition to a vibrant community attaching their identity to the project.
The company will be hosting an event in Berlin, see Events below. Arbitrade is now mining Decred.
Campus Party in Brasilia, Brazil. @girino, @Rhama and @matheusd talked about Decred. Matheus was interviewed by a TV channel. Check this quick report about the event, click "Show newer" to continue reading. (photos: 123)
Blockchain Summit in London, UK. This was not a full blown presence with stand but rather investigation of opportunities by @kyle and @Ani. The resulting detailed report is a good example of a document advising to stakeholders whether it is worth spending project funds.
Meetup in Berlin, Germany on July 18. @jz will give a talk and Q&A about Decred and chat with Ele from @oscoin about incentivizing developers. Hosted by BlueYard Capital.
Hey guys! I'd like to share with you my latest adventure: Stakey Club, hosted at stakey.club, is a website dedicated to Decred. I posted a few articles in Brazilian Portuguese and in English. I also translated to Portuguese some posts from the Decred Blog. I hope you like it! (slack)
Decred Assembly - Ep20 - Governance: Driving the Future (youtube) @cburniske and @traceagain discuss the importance of governance protocols being foundational and problems with delegated proof of stake
"I think that developers in the future are going to base their decision on where to build on the basis of governance and community. And so I look for good governance mechanisms and strong communities in blockchains." (@decredproject)
What is on-chain cryptocurrency governance? Is it plutocratic? by Richard Red (medium)
Apples to apples, Decred is 20x more expensive to attack than Bitcoin by Zubair Zia (medium)
What makes Decred different and better from other cryptocurrencies? (cxihub.com)
Community stats: Twitter followers 40,209 (+1,091), Reddit subscribers 8,410 (+243), Slack users 5,830 (+172), GitHub 392 stars and 918 forks of dcrd repository. An update on our communication systems:
Matrix chat logs are nowviewable on the web with the exception of some channels that are not bridged. The new web logs means our chats are now fully public and indexed by search engines.
Slack had an outage on Jun 27 that disturbed communications for a few hours, discussions continued on Decred's bridged platforms.
Jake Yocom-Piatt did an AMA on CryptoTechnology, a forum for serious crypto tech discussion. Some topics covered were Decred attack cost and resistance, voting policies, smart contracts, SPV security, DAO and DPoS. A new kind of DEX was the subject of an extensive discussion in #general, #random, #trading channels as well as Reddit. New channel #thedex was created and attracted more than 100 people. A frequent and fair question is how the DEX would benefit Decred. @lukebp has put it well:
Projects like these help Decred attract talent. Typically, the people that are the best at what they do aren’t driven solely by money. They want to work on interesting projects that they believe in with other talented individuals. Launching a DEX that has no trading fees, no requirement to buy a 3rd party token (including Decred), and that cuts out all middlemen is a clear demonstration of the ethos that Decred was founded on. It helps us get our name out there and attract the type of people that believe in the same mission that we do. (slack)
Another concern that it will slow down other projects was addressed by @davecgh:
The intent is for an external team to take up the mantle and build it, so it won't have any bearing on the current c0 roadmap. The important thing to keep in mind is that the goal of Decred is to have a bunch of independent teams on working on different things. (slack)
A chat about Decred fork resistance started on Twitter and continued in #trading. Community members continue to discuss the finer points of Decred's hybrid system, bringing new users up to speed and answering their questions. The key takeaway from this chat is that the Decred chain is impossible to advance without votes, and to get around that the forker needs to change the protocol in a way that would make it clearly not Decred. "Against community governance" article was discussed on Reddit and #governance. "The Downside of Democracy (and What it Means for Blockchain Governance)" was another article arguing against on-chain governance, discussed here. Reddit recap: mining rig shops discussion; how centralized is Politeia; controversial debate on photos of models that yielded useful discussion on our marketing approach; analysis of a drop in number of transactions; concerns regarding project bus factor, removing central authorities, advertising and full node count – received detailed responses; an argument by insette for maximizing aggregate tx fees; coordinating network upgrades; a new "Why Decred?" thread; a question about quantum resistance with a detailed answer and a recap of current status of quantum resistant algorithms. Chats recap: Programmatic Proof-of-Work (ProgPoW) discussion; possible hashrate of Blake-256 miners is at least ~30% higher than SHA-256d; how Decred is not vulnerable to SPV leaf/node attack.
DCR opened the month at ~$93, reached monthly high of $110, gradually dropped to the low of $58 and closed at $67. In BTC terms it was 0.0125 -> 0.0150 -> 0.0098 -> 0.0105. The downturn coincided with a global decline across the whole crypto market. In the middle of the month Decred was noticed to be #1 in onchainfx "% down from ATH" chart and on this chart by @CoinzTrader. Towards the end of the month it dropped to #3.
Please note: we will not accept any kind of payment to list an asset.
Bithumb got hacked with a $30 m loss. Zcash organized Zcon0, an event in Canada that focused on privacy tech and governance. An interesting insight from Keynote Panel on governance: "There is no such thing as on-chain governance". Microsoft acquired GitHub. There was some debate about whether it is a reason to look into alternative solutions like GitLab right now. It is always a good idea to have a local copy of Decred source code, just in case. Status update from @sumiflow on correcting DCR supply on various sites:
To begin with, none of the below sites were showing the correct supply or market cap for Decred but we've made some progress. coingecko.com, coinlib.io, cryptocompare.com, livecoinwatch.com, worldcoinindex.com - corrected! cryptoindex.co, onchainfx.com - awaiting fix coinmarketcap.com - refused to fix because devs have coins too? (slack)
About This Issue
This is the third issue of Decred Journal after April and May. Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research. The new public Matrix logs look promising and we hope to transition from Slack links to Matrix links. In the meantime, the way to read Slack links is explained in the previous issue. As usual, any feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room. Contributions are welcome too, anything from initial collection to final review to translations. Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee and Richard-Red. Special thanks to @Haon for bringing May 2018 issue to medium.
Google's Quantum Processor May Achieve Quantum Supremacy in Months Due to 'Doubly Exponential' Growth in Power
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)
In a new report in Quanta Magazine by Kevin Hartnett, Hartmut Neven, the director of Google's Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab, reveals that the growth in power with each new improvement to Google's best quantum processor is unlike anything found in nature. "Then in January, they ran the same test on an improved version of the quantum chip. This time they had to use a powerful desktop computer to simulate the result. By February, there were no longer any classical computers in the building that could simulate their quantum counterparts. The researchers had to request time on Google's enormous server network to do that."Somewhere in February I had to make calls to say, 'Hey, we need more quota,'" Nevens told Hartnett. In December 2019, only six months from now, the power of Google's quantum computing processor might be anywhere from 24096 times to 28192 times as powerful as it was at the start of the year. According to Neven's telling, by February-only three months after they began their tests, so 3 on our list-, there were no longer any classical computers in the building that could recreate the results of Google's quantum computer's calculations, which a laptop had been doing just two months earlier. Neven said that as a result, Google is preparing to reach quantum supremacy-the point where quantum computers start to outperform supercomputers simulating quantum algorithms-in a only a matter of months, not years: "We often say we think we will achieve it in 2019. Now, it's looking like we may even see the real deal by Christmas, and there's no reason to think that the power of quantum computers won't continue to increase even further once either Google or IBM or even someone else achieves true quantum supremacy.
Mit Hochdruck arbeiten diverse Forscherteams an der Entwicklung des Superchips der Zukunft. Seine Rechenleistung würde Computer revolutionieren – und Kryptowährungen vorerst in Frage stellen. Bitcoin fasziniert viele Nutzer - mal schießen die Kurse hoch, dann wird wieder eine Bitcoin-Börse gehackt und der Markt kracht runter. Doch die ersten Schritte mit der Kryptowährung können ... If a quantum computer did manage to mine all 2016 blocks, the network would simply adjust the difficulty, bottlenecking Sycamore’s further attempts. Still, in reality, the likelihood of bitcoin network being able to produce a difficulty setting of this level is improbable. Quantum Computers Could ‘Break’ Bitcoin Nevertheless, the author is right in a sense. Any attempt from a quantum ... IBM recently unveiled its Q System One at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2019, with the company describing the quantum computer as being developed for “commercial use.” Despite numerous media out No, IBM’s Quantum Computer Won’t Break Bitcoin BTC has gone from an extremely niche idea back in the early 2010’s to a multibillion-dollar force of nature that garners headlines from big news agencies regularly. Humble Beginnings During the beginning of 2017 BTC’s price was an astounding $1,000 but then exploded even farther by the end of the year hitting nearly $7,000. However, ...
Quantum Computing The Biggest Threat to Bitcoin?? (Must Watch)
Bitcoin Broke the descending triangle and dropped below $8,000, the main reason why this happened is when came out regarding google quantum computer. In this video I will explain what is quantum ... Start making money everyday with us! Click Here - http://www.tradegeniusacademy.com Use Promo Code "fall" For 40% OFF All Non Bundled Items! Pay attention an... Commercially viable quantum computing could be here sooner than you think, thanks to a new innovation that shrinks quantum tech down onto a chip: a cryochip.... Is quantum computing a threat to Bitcoin? How can Bitcoin become more secure against a quantum computing attack? Will this upgrade require moving coins to ne... For more on blockchain & cryptocurrency, visit https://www.finder.com/cryptocurrency?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=video&utm_campaign=tdx&utm_content=yt-desc...