4 ms·

The irony in this is that the Citizens United ruling, at least in the US, affirmed that spending money is speech. It's actually one of the reasons why I'm an ar

by nrr 5y ago

The irony in this is that the Citizens United ruling, at least in the US, affirmed that spending money is speech. It's actually one of the reasons why I'm an ardent supporter of postal banking. Since the USPS is an arm of the federal government, it must work within the confines of the First Amendment[0]. As it stands, I remain pretty unconvinced that cryptocurrencies writ large solve this kind of (at least, what I call) "borderless" free speech problem today. They simply don't do enough to frustrate the state or the incumbent banking institutions, mostly because they aren't actually peer to peer enough where it counts. Notably, I can't transact with other people on the network with only my smartphone or a small computer communicating 1000's of kilometers over the radio using digital modes without also relying on, e.g., an exchange to act as an intermediary. How do these systems handle large-scale network partitions where an entire geographic region stops announcing its prefixes to the wider Internet but continues to process transactions and append to the blockchain within its borders? Does the blockchain fork? How is that fork resolved? (Is it ever resolved? The existence of Ethereum Classic implies to me that it isn't, or at least isn't required to be, and I find that prospect frankly frightening.) The tank analogy is quite apropos, I find. Without a convoy of trucks bringing in fuel, the tanks stop. An adversary powerful enough to sever your connection to the outside world (whether in terms of electricity to keep things going or network connectivity) for the purposes of transacting seems like quite the Achilles' heel. [0]: Modulo other rulings. Modulo the impartiality of SCOTUS.

chasil 5y ago
I want you to pay attention to this very carefully: https://www.openssh.com/releasenotes.html https://www.openssh.com/releasenotes.html * ssh(1), sshd(8): add the sntrup761x25519-sha512@openssh.com hybrid ECDH/x25519 + Streamlined NTRU Prime post-quantum KEX to the default KEXAlgorithms list (after the ECDH methods but before the prime-group DH ones). The next release of OpenSSH is likely to make this key exchange the default method. There is a non-zero probability that a quantum computer can break these key exchanges. This might not require a full application of Shor's algorithm, as studies continue with statistics from quantum annealers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurherman/2021/06/07/q-day-is-coming-sooner-than-we-think/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurherman/2021/06/07/q-day-i... If this happens, cryptocurrency as currently designed collapses.
- delecti 5y ago
  Doesn't quantum computing render most cryptographic security obsolete? I'm a cryptocurrency skeptic, but I've been under the impression that quantum computing is just as much a concern for traditional banking as for cryptocurrencies.
  - chasil 5y ago
    A quantum computer is most effective with key exchanges, at cracking the "discrete logarithm problem." It is not as effective with symmetric ciphers and hashes. https://stribika.github.io/2015/01/04/secure-secure-shell.html https://stribika.github.io/2015/01/04/secure-secure-shell.ht...
- chasil 5y ago
  This is further complicated with what is happening at NIST, with NTRU-Prime: https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/round-3-submissions https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/rou... "Formal complaint regarding 8 June 2021 incident - 2021.06.15, Daniel J. Bernstein "Executive summary. A week ago Dr. Daniel Apon from NIST publicly accused me of professional misconduct. Specifically, he accused me of initiating private contact with NIST so as to provide false information to NIST regarding the timing of an upcoming announcement relevant to NIST’s ongoing decisions..."
- 8organicbits 5y ago
  I think this is a question of algorithm agility. Bitcoin has a mechanism to change its implementation[1], so it's possible to upgrade. On the mining side, miners would pick a new algorithm, vote, and then cut over when approved. Although, if a post-quantum technique allowed faster mining, a change to the mining algorithm may not be needed. Bitcoin would notice the faster hashrate and increase the difficulty, miners would rush to buy quantum hardware. As long as quantum hardware is generally available for purchase, we'd still have decentralized mining. On the wallet side, we'd need miners to vote for and approve quantum safe wallet operations. Users would need to update their software and their wallets. I'd expect some stuck wallets (like the initial blocks, lost keys) could get spent. This is sort of like someone recovering gold from a sunken ship. I agree this seems like an existential threat, but there is an update path. Unless there's a sudden onset where no-one has time to react, I suspect the miners would reach consensus. Some users may be slow to update their wallets, and may suffer losses. I think we'd eventually see recovery of the coins from the mining of the initial blocks, which are generally believed to lost/stuck. This would sort of be like recovery of gold from a sunken ship. I've heard that recovery of those coins would destabilize Bitcoin value, due to the large value. However, unless they are all unexpectedly recovered at once, I'd expect the market to "price that in" gradually as recovery begins. I'd expect many cryptocurrencies not to survive the transition, although I'm a crypto skeptic and I don't expect hype/scam coins to survive anyway. [1] https://blog.coinbase.com/bitcoin-s-elegant-upgrade-mechanism-miner-voting-66faa35d27af https://blog.coinbase.com/bitcoin-s-elegant-upgrade-mechanis...

by nrr 5y ago

chasil 5y ago

I want you to pay attention to this very carefully: https://www.openssh.com/releasenotes.html https://www.openssh.com/releasenotes.html * ssh(1), sshd(8): add the sntrup761x25519-sha512@openssh.com hybrid ECDH/x25519 + Streamlined NTRU Prime post-quantum KEX to the default KEXAlgorithms list (after the ECDH methods but before the prime-group DH ones). The next release of OpenSSH is likely to make this key exchange the default method. There is a non-zero probability that a quantum computer can break these key exchanges. This might not require a full application of Shor's algorithm, as studies continue with statistics from quantum annealers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurherman/2021/06/07/q-day-is-coming-sooner-than-we-think/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurherman/2021/06/07/q-day-i... If this happens, cryptocurrency as currently designed collapses.

delecti 5y ago
Doesn't quantum computing render most cryptographic security obsolete? I'm a cryptocurrency skeptic, but I've been under the impression that quantum computing is just as much a concern for traditional banking as for cryptocurrencies.
- chasil 5y ago
  A quantum computer is most effective with key exchanges, at cracking the "discrete logarithm problem." It is not as effective with symmetric ciphers and hashes. https://stribika.github.io/2015/01/04/secure-secure-shell.html https://stribika.github.io/2015/01/04/secure-secure-shell.ht...
chasil 5y ago
This is further complicated with what is happening at NIST, with NTRU-Prime: https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/round-3-submissions https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/rou... "Formal complaint regarding 8 June 2021 incident - 2021.06.15, Daniel J. Bernstein "Executive summary. A week ago Dr. Daniel Apon from NIST publicly accused me of professional misconduct. Specifically, he accused me of initiating private contact with NIST so as to provide false information to NIST regarding the timing of an upcoming announcement relevant to NIST’s ongoing decisions..."
8organicbits 5y ago
I think this is a question of algorithm agility. Bitcoin has a mechanism to change its implementation[1], so it's possible to upgrade. On the mining side, miners would pick a new algorithm, vote, and then cut over when approved. Although, if a post-quantum technique allowed faster mining, a change to the mining algorithm may not be needed. Bitcoin would notice the faster hashrate and increase the difficulty, miners would rush to buy quantum hardware. As long as quantum hardware is generally available for purchase, we'd still have decentralized mining. On the wallet side, we'd need miners to vote for and approve quantum safe wallet operations. Users would need to update their software and their wallets. I'd expect some stuck wallets (like the initial blocks, lost keys) could get spent. This is sort of like someone recovering gold from a sunken ship. I agree this seems like an existential threat, but there is an update path. Unless there's a sudden onset where no-one has time to react, I suspect the miners would reach consensus. Some users may be slow to update their wallets, and may suffer losses. I think we'd eventually see recovery of the coins from the mining of the initial blocks, which are generally believed to lost/stuck. This would sort of be like recovery of gold from a sunken ship. I've heard that recovery of those coins would destabilize Bitcoin value, due to the large value. However, unless they are all unexpectedly recovered at once, I'd expect the market to "price that in" gradually as recovery begins. I'd expect many cryptocurrencies not to survive the transition, although I'm a crypto skeptic and I don't expect hype/scam coins to survive anyway. [1] https://blog.coinbase.com/bitcoin-s-elegant-upgrade-mechanism-miner-voting-66faa35d27af https://blog.coinbase.com/bitcoin-s-elegant-upgrade-mechanis...