Bitcoin Forum

Researchers say they have designed a tiny crystal that acts like a quantum computer so powerful it would take a computer the size of the known universe to match it.

And I thought remote control to the TV was a big breakthrough...

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/researchers_claim_a_quantum_breakthrough_a_computer_so_powerful_it_would_take_a_computer_the_size_of_the_known_universe_to_match_it?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweet&utm_content=1574th&utm_campaign=digg2000

If this is true, the consequences of it will be hard to grasp.
But what consequences will it have on Bitcoin? In the coming years?

None, this is decades from being utilized.

As a researcher who often claims things and listens to claims of peers, all I can tell you: never trust a scientist. Long gone are the days of scientific method and integrity. There are solid facts and statistics showing that only 10-30% of published academic research can be reproduced. The morale of the story: be very reserved, and don't fall for it easily.

Here's an exercise for you: whenever faced with an article making grandiose, game-changing claims (curing cancer, developing new computing technologies, etc.) - make a note of it. Few years later, check on the status or even existence of these claims.

The Nature article linked does not seem to be directly relevant to the story, but perhaps it's over my head.

Who wants my HD6990?

More likely it's already being utilized and whatever you read in that article is news from decades ago.

If you think that the greatest current technological advancements of the present are made available to the public, think again.

In my opinion the more pressing issue is the steady decline in the number of actual nodes in the Bitcoin network looking less and less like the resilient decentralized bittorrent and more and more like an easy target for the government.

You believe that they currently have said computer operational and at their disposal??

Quantum computing is so far away from reality it is not an issue.  Quantum computing doesn't involve the equivalent of a a CPU yet.  It is more a series (very limited) of gates that can have states and hard coded processes only.  They are not programmable in the traditional sense.

Isn't it possible to just up the encryption strength in future versions?  Wasn't the bitcoin protocol written at a high enough level that all it would take is a software update to move from 256 bit or whatever to 1024 bit?

uhm ... if this quantum combuter is 10^20 faster at solving the invers to your hasing function, you have a problem. Also please think of all the charged accounts that will not reallize they would need to act to protect their property. Getting the old coins to more secure addresseds requires human interaction ...

On the other hand I guess that some advance in techmology like this will help rediscover all those bitcoins lost due to accidentally deleted wallets. At some point more computing power will go into breaking the biggest stashes of old bitcoins than into securing the bitcoin network.

Remember quantum computers have a exponential engineering difficulty increase for every added qbit.

Building a quantum computer with 15 bit is (some factor above 1) harder than a 14bit one.
the thing that we are still working out is: "what is this factor."    :P

This. Do not trust something just because it is "peer reviewed", Peer reviewed is much better than nothing. There is no doubt it is 1000x better than listening to your neighbor or pizza guy. Even so, many researchers have no idea what they are doing or how to even analyze their data. Moreso even if you want to do that you do not have time due to publish/perish. All the folk publishing half-analyzed, half-controlled, filtered results get the publications, money, and jobs. Many who try to do it right get discouraged early. It is a culture problem. Personally, I am glad I have realized this early on.

Most of what is published (at least in the biomed field) is barely worth anything. You need to assess all the nearly worthless results together and then you may have something. One paper alone is like nothing.

Also, I was talking about reading actual journal articles. If you get your science news via the media... you are probably worse than uninformed on most topics.

Changing the crypto isn't backward-compatible, so everyone would have to upgrade. I don't think this would be too difficult, though.

Bitcoin's 256-bit ECDSA keys are really strong (equivalent to 3072-bit RSA keys in strength), and SHA-256 is still secure with quantum computers, so I don't see it being a problem in the near future. NIST and ECRYPT II say that Bitcoin's crypto is good until at least 2030.

From  http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/26/3489504.htm

This might be a problem for things like "Quantum Computing Interstellar Navigation Systems."
"Missed it by that much."

Hmmm...1mm quantum computer requires 1000 square feet of space. I guess the speed benefeits outway the space requirements.

Quick! Ask it for the answer to the ultimate question! :D

If you get a universe packed with computers computing power for that, I'm pretty sure you are wrong. The quote "I think there is a worldwide market for maybe five computers" might finally come true ;)

Ships in 4-6 weeks.

Pre-order now! 

if you read it as you would read a known lie, it isn't hard to make a decent guess at what 'truth' they started with

I would like a world where the truth wins out, but we currently live in a money controlled world, and i imagine without the people working on breakthroughs spinning BS about how great it is, people will never show an interest.
The way i see it is, the more hype the scientists make, the more people are interested (even if misinformed), the more money someone can make, the more money the scientists get, the more actual 'breakthroughs' they can make, the more hype they can spin, rinse and repeat

but hey, i could be wrong, give me a grant to research it properly :p