4 ms·

Yes, but I'm pretty sure the moment this is achieved bitcoin's price will collapse. And the investment required to produce such a machine is undoubtedly in the

Yes, but I'm pretty sure the moment this is achieved bitcoin's price will collapse. And the investment required to produce such a machine is undoubtedly in the XX billions.

TZubiri 2y ago
"Yes, but I'm pretty sure the moment this is achieved bitcoin's price will collapse." Not necessarily. There's two interpretations to the question: 1. QC would be very efficient and mine efficiently. 2. QC would break SHA and would be able to reverse the hashing function at O(1). In scenario 1. The difficulty would increase. The mining rate globally always stays the same. And the voting power would be distributed amongst the holders of the new compute, this has happened before with ASICs. Usually there's some graduality to it, and the capital is distributed so that there is never a 51% monopoly. It's especially relevant how big the jump is, if the new computer is stronger than all of the existing miners combined, then they get 100% theoretically (although with malice). In that case there would probably be a fork or as you put it, BTC would collapse. However, if you have that power, holding BTC is probably not that important anyway. The actual compute is worth more. On scenario 2. Yes BTC would crash, but then again the actual compute power would be more impactful. BTC would crash but so would encryption, and planes and the world.
- Solvitieg 2y ago
  > BTC would crash but so would encryption, and planes and the world. Sad to see Bitcoin advocates use this dismissive argument. Centralized systems will update their software as the threat increases. Meanwhile, there are no serious proposals for a quantum-resistance Bitcoin. Some are estimating the update will require a hard fork and take 1 year to update.
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    Not sure I would say I'm a bitcoin advocate, nor whether the argument is dismissive, or what it's supposed to be dismissive.

Yes, but I'm pretty sure the moment this is achieved bitcoin's price will collapse. And the investment required to produce such a machine is undoubtedly in the XX billions.

TZubiri 2y ago

"Yes, but I'm pretty sure the moment this is achieved bitcoin's price will collapse." Not necessarily. There's two interpretations to the question: 1. QC would be very efficient and mine efficiently. 2. QC would break SHA and would be able to reverse the hashing function at O(1). In scenario 1. The difficulty would increase. The mining rate globally always stays the same. And the voting power would be distributed amongst the holders of the new compute, this has happened before with ASICs. Usually there's some graduality to it, and the capital is distributed so that there is never a 51% monopoly. It's especially relevant how big the jump is, if the new computer is stronger than all of the existing miners combined, then they get 100% theoretically (although with malice). In that case there would probably be a fork or as you put it, BTC would collapse. However, if you have that power, holding BTC is probably not that important anyway. The actual compute is worth more. On scenario 2. Yes BTC would crash, but then again the actual compute power would be more impactful. BTC would crash but so would encryption, and planes and the world.

Solvitieg 2y ago
> BTC would crash but so would encryption, and planes and the world. Sad to see Bitcoin advocates use this dismissive argument. Centralized systems will update their software as the threat increases. Meanwhile, there are no serious proposals for a quantum-resistance Bitcoin. Some are estimating the update will require a hard fork and take 1 year to update.
- TZubiri 2y ago
  Not sure I would say I'm a bitcoin advocate, nor whether the argument is dismissive, or what it's supposed to be dismissive.