 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
No, IBM’s Quantum Computer won’t break Bitcoin, but we should be prepared for one that can. https://medium.com/the-quantum-resistant-ledger/no-ibms-quantum-computer-won-t-break-bitcoin-but-we-should-be-prepared-for-one-that-can-cc3e178ebff0There will be some pushback among purists, but how many really are there? Either way, I agree that the community should start drawing up some concrete solutions.
There is still no quantum solution in the Bitcoin network because.. Bitcoin is still dominated by people who want to make money first and foremost, so I could see a move like this, which preserves their coins' value, garner a lot of support.
Merit +++But Bitcoin is about competition and best technology. That should be our task. The big money will come in post quantum. |
|
|
|
Quantum computers are not common, so it's too early to talk about anything. And besides, this technology has not yet been finalized
The question is important for the future of Bitcoin. Imagine a BTC price > $1,000,000 and more than 1,000,000 'shalecoins', coins with no owner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134441.0 would become active. The value of these coins would be > $1,000,000,000,000 How can that work? |
|
|
|
1. Yes, with quantum computers they would become active. Did Satoshi think that quantum computers will exist? |
|
|
|
some may suggest Satoshi alone mine nearly 1m of the coins, but that’s not the same with USD, can I just say it, the FED can simply print 99.9% of the overall circulating USD, and I simply can’t call that fair, and it has no doubt absurd than simply owning 1m out of 21m total supply.
Satoshi published the white paper well before releasing the first bitcoin software and no one stopped anyone from being the initial miner and anyone who was capable of mining the coins with their basic laptop could have made tens of thousands of coins and it is a fair system from the beginning. Bitcoin is valuable simply because it is the first decentralized currency. But nobody heard of or understood Bitcoin then. The result was I think the likeliest scenario is that hundreds of people downloaded and ran the client then, got a bunch of blocks that were at the time useless because they were valueless, then deleted their client.
Satoshi did not expect that but then he could/can do something for the better distribution of the 'shalecoins'. It would be better for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
So what it is fair?
To become the owners of the 'shalecoins' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134441.0, coins with no owners. We have the same situation like 2009 when Bitcoin started. There are millions of 'shalecoins'. Everyone has now the equal chance. It will be good for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I know your view is unpopular, and as a Bitcoin person myself, I agree with you, that it's really difficult to genuinely think of Bitcoin as having succeeded as a fair distribution coin. I think it's more accurate to say that it is the one with the least unfair distribution -- but ..... Bitcoins situation is difficult. There are a lot of 'shalecoins' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134441.0, coins with no owners, which will be 'fracked' when quantum computers exist. Maybe after a very long time, but it will happen. With that knowledge, the big money can't come to Bitcoin. Imagine a Bitcoin price > 1,000,000 $ and then coming in millions of new coins. How will that work? Therefore, it would be better, if Satoshi looked for ways to distribute this 'shalecoins'. Even moving the coins to P2PKH addresses would help them being quantum secure. Maybe Satoshi created the greatest prize competition https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5150688.0Maybe Satoshi created the greatest prize competition and the privatekeys are somehow within the blockchain.
or Satoshi wants quantum computers to be developed and these coins will be their reward. Support us, support Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Do you think satoshi will ever come back and post on this forum? Jameson Lopp @lopp: If you believe that Bitcoin users are being mean to you because of who you are rather than the quality of your ideas, create an anonymous account from which to test your ideas. https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1132296263146319878 |
|
|
|
..but one things for sure if hes still alive that he do visits this forum.
Also I am sure Satoshi is watching us in this forum.
I think he is still watching the forum, but not gonna post in his real account.
As i know he had left Bitcoin so there is no reason for him to come back here under nickname satoshi. But i think he might often visit this forum.
Is also my opinion. |
|
|
|
I think he or she will, something in my heart tells me they are still alive. I don`t think they will reveal their location or who they are, but I do think they will post on this forum in the next 5 years. It is only a matter of time before some big big rogue miners or bitcoin devs do something he or she do not like or see`s a problem with and they will have to come back and have a voice in the matter. for bitcoin's sake, i hope that never happens. one of the reasons bitcoin is so superior to altcoins is its decentralized and consensus-based development process. unlike ethereum or ripple or bitcoin cash or BSV---which have small numbers of extremely influential developers and decision makers who can economically coerce users into following their forks---bitcoin development is merit-based, consensus-based. with bitcoin, there is no vitalik buterin figure to pressure the network into accepting the ethereum foundation's roadmap. i believe this is one of the reasons satoshi left and also why he/they will never return. It will probably start by him or her saying something like this.
"Keep using the longest chain" or maybe "use this chain instead from now on"
I did a poll earlier a few months ago I think 19 out of 20 people said they would use whatever satoshi said.
that's terrible. if developers are deciding the blockchain state, then the network doesn't operate by decentralized consensus at all! SHA-256 is very strong. It's not like the incremental step from MD5 to SHA1. It can last several decades unless there's some massive breakthrough attack.
If SHA-256 became completely broken, I think we could come to some agreement about what the honest block chain was before the trouble started, lock that in and continue from there with a new hash function.
If the hash breakdown came gradually, we could transition to a new hash in an orderly way. The software would be programmed to start using a new hash after a certain block number. Everyone would have to upgrade by that time. The software could save the new hash of all the old blocks to make sure a different block with the same old hash can't be used.
|
|
|
|
The admins at Bitcointalk should have several IP addresses from Satoshi, because the IPs are saved in the logs. They are in the Database somewhere!
Why not revealing them?
Bitcointalk = Satoshi |
|
|
|
Actually once you soft fork to add the quantum resistant code, you might also add something to keep those coins locked forever. Something along the lines of: By the date the new code activates, coins not moved to a new wallet that supports it become locked. You can wait a year or four (next halving), etc. to give people plenty of time... Well we will see what core brings regarding this matter.
If you keep those coins locked or something else what changes the original supply, you will create another sh**coin fork. The original chain will always remain the main chain with all the mined coins. Bitcoin is a challenge network. There will be a quantum update. But whoever moves the coins with no owner from the old to the new addresses will be the new owners. That is what original Bitcoin is. That makes the community improve the network. SHA-256 is not a quantum issue but to have an example: SHA-256 is very strong. It's not like the incremental step from MD5 to SHA1. It can last several decades unless there's some massive breakthrough attack.
If SHA-256 became completely broken, I think we could come to some agreement about what the honest block chain was before the trouble started, lock that in and continue from there with a new hash function.
If the hash breakdown came gradually, we could transition to a new hash in an orderly way. The software would be programmed to start using a new hash after a certain block number. Everyone would have to upgrade by that time. The software could save the new hash of all the old blocks to make sure a different block with the same old hash can't be used.
"Keep using the longest chain" or maybe "use this chain instead from now on"
I did a poll earlier a few months ago I think 19 out of 20 people said they would use whatever satoshi said.
Thereafter we would have two chains. The original chain and a forked one. To avoid such situations the Bitcoin community has to have an updated network all the time. That is the challenge. The quantum update will mark the new beginning of Bitcoin as the lost coins will be active again. |
|
|
|
|
