3 ms·

But if it wasn’t the fake money that allowed them to stagnate inflation then what did? As someone not very well versed on economics I find this whole thing inte

by I_Byte 5y ago

But if it wasn’t the fake money that allowed them to stagnate inflation then what did? As someone not very well versed on economics I find this whole thing interesting and would like to get a good picture of what actually happened. Edit - I just opened your website and I think I found a mistake. > Quantum Computers - It won't affect Bitcoin in either a positive or negative manner Bitcoin wallet addresses are based on the Ed25519 elliptic curve, and to my understanding, a quantum computer is able to break the current major forms of public cryptography that we use to date (RSA, EC). A quantum computer can be used to break wallets private keys and steal bitcoins. So a quantum computer would be pretty bad for Bitcoin in its current state.

mrnotcrazy 5y ago
Isn't bitcoin still being developed? So can't they just update the cryptography when we get to that point? I guess I don't really how how much bitcoin can change over time
- I_Byte 5y ago
  Bitcoin is still being developed yes. However, what are the chances that old stagnant wallets, like Satoshi’s, are moved to a new quantum proof wallet? Are we to trust whoever tries to move Satoshi’s fortune 30 years from now when all the old wallets are considered “broken”?
- schoen 5y ago
  Smaller changes have resulted in hard forks in Bitcoin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Gold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Gold So yes, it is conceivable to change the fundamental algorithms, but it would certainly be experienced as a fork to the extent that not everyone involved in Bitcoin participated. Also, changing the digital signature algorithm is a bigger and more difficult change than the hashing algorithm in some ways, because you need a strategy to preserve people's existing balances, either one that requires, or one that works without, their active involvement (that is, generating signatures). If there is a feasible attack to forge signatures, then a method that can work without existing Bitcoin owners' involvement will leave them vulnerable to having their holdings stolen by forgeries in the future. You can think of this as somewhat akin to weak RNGs in Bitcoin clients (there have been a couple of these) generating vulnerable private keys -- if legitimate owners knew about the problem before attackers acted, they could act to protect themselves, but if not, not. A feasible signature forgery attack based on a quantum computer would put everyone who owns cryptocurrency wallets based on the vulnerable signatures in a position like that of people using a client with a weak RNG. :-(
- cakoose 5y ago
  As others have said, changing the Bitcoin protocol can be tricky. Another issue with replacing Ed25519: the best "post-quantum" asymmetric crypto we have so far is a lot less efficient and compact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography#Comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography#Comp... That'll probably make it more disruptive than, for example, swapping out SHA-1 for SHA-256.
bogota 5y ago
Not going to comment on the validity of your statement. However… if what you said was true the least of our problems would be Bitcoin.
- I_Byte 5y ago
  You’re right.
memorysafety 5y ago
> [...] So a quantum computer would be pretty bad for Bitcoin in its current state. Your reasoning is sound. But it won't be as bad. I'd claim, not much worse than dealing with leap seconds. For 2 reasons: • Post-Quantum Cryptography exists. • The updated (quantum-resistant) Bitcoin will get renamed back to Bitcoin. I agree your parent could use a review. I failed to read them any far.

by I_Byte 5y ago

mrnotcrazy 5y ago

Isn't bitcoin still being developed? So can't they just update the cryptography when we get to that point? I guess I don't really how how much bitcoin can change over time

I_Byte 5y ago
Bitcoin is still being developed yes. However, what are the chances that old stagnant wallets, like Satoshi’s, are moved to a new quantum proof wallet? Are we to trust whoever tries to move Satoshi’s fortune 30 years from now when all the old wallets are considered “broken”?
schoen 5y ago
Smaller changes have resulted in hard forks in Bitcoin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Gold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Gold So yes, it is conceivable to change the fundamental algorithms, but it would certainly be experienced as a fork to the extent that not everyone involved in Bitcoin participated. Also, changing the digital signature algorithm is a bigger and more difficult change than the hashing algorithm in some ways, because you need a strategy to preserve people's existing balances, either one that requires, or one that works without, their active involvement (that is, generating signatures). If there is a feasible attack to forge signatures, then a method that can work without existing Bitcoin owners' involvement will leave them vulnerable to having their holdings stolen by forgeries in the future. You can think of this as somewhat akin to weak RNGs in Bitcoin clients (there have been a couple of these) generating vulnerable private keys -- if legitimate owners knew about the problem before attackers acted, they could act to protect themselves, but if not, not. A feasible signature forgery attack based on a quantum computer would put everyone who owns cryptocurrency wallets based on the vulnerable signatures in a position like that of people using a client with a weak RNG. :-(
cakoose 5y ago
As others have said, changing the Bitcoin protocol can be tricky. Another issue with replacing Ed25519: the best "post-quantum" asymmetric crypto we have so far is a lot less efficient and compact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography#Comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography#Comp... That'll probably make it more disruptive than, for example, swapping out SHA-1 for SHA-256.

bogota 5y ago

Not going to comment on the validity of your statement. However… if what you said was true the least of our problems would be Bitcoin.

I_Byte 5y ago
You’re right.

memorysafety 5y ago

> [...] So a quantum computer would be pretty bad for Bitcoin in its current state. Your reasoning is sound. But it won't be as bad. I'd claim, not much worse than dealing with leap seconds. For 2 reasons: • Post-Quantum Cryptography exists. • The updated (quantum-resistant) Bitcoin will get renamed back to Bitcoin. I agree your parent could use a review. I failed to read them any far.