Future Forks..

[spartacusrex]

Given the current hoo-haa going on with respect to the blocksize, I wanted to think about future HARD forks that Bitcoin will almost certainly encounter.

1) Quantum secure signing algorithm. At some point, I think most would agree , quantum computers will be a reality. We'll have to change bitcoin's signing algos accordingly.

2) Arbitrary precision maths. When bitcoins are worth 'serious' amounts, 8 decimal places won't be enough.. (.. Happy Days..  )

.. there are others, but I'm not sure they are essential to bitcoin's survival - anyone think of any essential ones ?

If doubling the blocksize started a war, which it effectively has, I can't even imagine what trying to implement these features will do.. (Since there are many different ways they could be achieved..)

Will it even be possible to HARD fork so large a change, as instead of 2 camps(Yes and No), there may be 5, 10, or more! and then things will get, very complicated.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Given the current hoo-haa going on with respect to the blocksize, I wanted to think about future HARD forks that Bitcoin will almost certainly encounter.

1) Quantum secure signing algorithm. At some point, I think most would agree , quantum computers will be a reality. We'll have to change bitcoin's signing algos accordingly.

2) Arbitrary precision maths. When bitcoins are worth 'serious' amounts, 8 decimal places won't be enough.. (.. Happy Days..  )

.. there are others, but I'm not sure they are essential to bitcoin's survival - anyone think of any essential ones ?

If doubling the blocksize started a war, which it effectively has, I can't even imagine what trying to implement these features will do.. (Since there are many different ways they could be achieved..)

Will it even be possible to HARD fork so large a change, as instead of 2 camps(Yes and No), there may be 5, 10, or more! and then things will get, very complicated.

I just hope they can come up with some sort of pact in what to do when those problems arise. As of right now, the first problem is sci-fi, I don't see quantum computers being a problem, not even during our lifetimes. I don't think we'll see SHA256 hacked.

Number 2, I believe we'll see 1 million BTC during our lifetimes, but it will still not be a problem with the 8 decimal places.

[Amph]

how they can solve the problem with mining if in the future bitcoin is forced to change algo? i can't think of any solution for the miners to sell all their 300 peta and probably much more in the future and change them with another asic

it would be a 100% disaster..

[spartacusrex]

Good point Amph, but the advent of quantum computers does not break SHA256.. although it 'may' mean having to switch to a 512 bit algo, and as you say, this would be VERY hard to fork. (Due to the fact that QCs make it easier to brute force)

Quantum computers will break ECDSA, and any algorithm based on factorisation.

So the 'signing' algo, not the 'mining' algo, will need to be changed..

[NeuroticFish]

For now there are much more important issues to fix, to make blockchain be ready for much bigger transaction volumes.
There was brought in many places that since there were (and are!) a lot of valid transactions still unconfirmed since the last test/attack, the miners just go forward focusing on getting the block fee and not caring much of confirming as much as possible (of course, by the user fee).

Then the block size may come into discussion.


The problems you stated may be valid but the current devs will be dead and buried long before such problems will arise and then why bother, really?

[spartacusrex]

..the current devs will be dead and buried long before such problems will arise..

Sorry devs, you heard it here first.. 

..

But seriously, I am of the exact opposite opinion, and that these changes should be implemented sooner rather than later.

As bitcoin grows, I am sure these forks will be MUCH HARDER to implement, not easier.. 

[jaberwock]

The network can't handle some stress spam tests, I don't think it is the moment to think about sci-fi problems like Quantum Computers etc.

And arbitrary precision will always lead to errors, but I don't think 21*10^14 satoshis won't be enough for everyone until the galactic empire arises with a population of trillions

[Amph]

Good point Amph, but the advent of quantum computers does not break SHA256.. although it 'may' mean having to switch to a 512 bit algo, and as you say, this would be VERY hard to fork. (Due to the fact that QCs make it easier to brute force)

Quantum computers will break ECDSA, and any algorithm based on factorisation.

So the 'signing' algo, not the 'mining' algo, will need to be changed..

yeah i know it will not break 256, but i was talking on a more enhanced version of qauntum or a completely different tech that could break it in a very remote future

satoshi predicted this too

SHA256 is not going to be broken by Moore’s law computational improvements in our lifetimes. If it’s going to get broken, it’ll be by some breakthrough cracking method. An attack that could so thoroughly vanquish SHA256 to bring it within computationally tractable range has a good chance of clobbering SHA512 too. If we see a weakness in SHA256 coming gradually, we can transition to a new hash function after a certain block number. Everyone would have to upgrade their software by that block number. The new software would keep a new hash of all the old blocks to make sure they’re not replaced with another block with the same old hash.

[spartacusrex]

satoshi predicted this too

SHA256 is not going to be broken by Moore’s law computational improvements in our lifetimes. If it’s going to get broken, it’ll be by some breakthrough cracking method. An attack that could so thoroughly vanquish SHA256 to bring it within computationally tractable range has a good chance of clobbering SHA512 too. If we see a weakness in SHA256 coming gradually, we can transition to a new hash function after a certain block number. Everyone would have to upgrade their software by that block number. The new software would keep a new hash of all the old blocks to make sure they’re not replaced with another block with the same old hash.

wow.. Will there ever be an event that Satoshi didn't predict.. ?

Although '.. Everyone would have to upgrade their software..' is now '..Everyone would have to upgrade their Hardware..' and as you say, this would be almost impossible..

The network can't handle some stress spam tests, I don't think it is the moment to think about sci-fi problems like Quantum Computers etc.

..Yeah, let's kick this can down the road. Let our children deal with it. Worked for Greece..

[unamis76]

Given the current hoo-haa going on with respect to the blocksize, I wanted to think about future HARD forks that Bitcoin will almost certainly encounter.

1) Quantum secure signing algorithm. At some point, I think most would agree , quantum computers will be a reality. We'll have to change bitcoin's signing algos accordingly.

2) Arbitrary precision maths. When bitcoins are worth 'serious' amounts, 8 decimal places won't be enough.. (.. Happy Days..  )

.. there are others, but I'm not sure they are essential to bitcoin's survival - anyone think of any essential ones ?

If doubling the blocksize started a war, which it effectively has, I can't even imagine what trying to implement these features will do.. (Since there are many different ways they could be achieved..)

Will it even be possible to HARD fork so large a change, as instead of 2 camps(Yes and No), there may be 5, 10, or more! and then things will get, very complicated.

The first one would eventually be needed... Or not When we have quantum computers, the signing will probably be broken, and Bitcoin as it currently is might not be safe (as in, private keys might be able to be calculated within a lifetime, or maybe in just a few hours. I think that might be possible some day with quantum computing, correct me if I'm wrong ).

As for the second one... You really trust in Bitcoin's future regarding price Well, if the price does reach really high levels that might be needed!

New features won't probably start such a war (at least I certainly hope they won't). Experience will tell everyone that wars aren't good and it will give people the expertise to deal better in hard fork situations due to past experiences.

[pereira4]

Good point Amph, but the advent of quantum computers does not break SHA256.. although it 'may' mean having to switch to a 512 bit algo, and as you say, this would be VERY hard to fork. (Due to the fact that QCs make it easier to brute force)

Quantum computers will break ECDSA, and any algorithm based on factorisation.

So the 'signing' algo, not the 'mining' algo, will need to be changed..

Consider this: If the NSA or whatever breaks SHA256, they would be breaking most of the banking infraestructures as well, which also work under SHA256 encryptions. If SHA256 gets broken, Bitcoin would be the least of their worries, since their own system would collapse unless they update it before they announce it,  and when they start updating their stuff Bitcoin devs would notice and update Bitcoin as well with another algo.

[spartacusrex]

..which also work under SHA256 encryptions.

Err.. there is no SHA256 'Encryption'.. ?

I think people are getting mixed up.

Banks use some pub/priv key encryption schemes (PGP, SSL, ECDSA etc..) which I agree will be broken with QC, but that has nothing to do with Secure Hash functions.

If you know of an 'Encryption' scheme, not a 'Sign/Verify' scheme, that uses hash functions, I'm all ears ?

..and when they start updating their stuff Bitcoin devs would notice and update Bitcoin as well with another algo.

You say that like you think it will be easy to reach consensus on what/which/when/where algo to use..

This is exactly what I am trying (badly obviously) to say. We can't even agree to change 1 number! , the block size, let alone trying to change something major, like the signing algo / decimal accuracy..

[LiteCoinGuy]

satoshi predicted this too

SHA256 is not going to be broken by Moore’s law computational improvements in our lifetimes. If it’s going to get broken, it’ll be by some breakthrough cracking method. An attack that could so thoroughly vanquish SHA256 to bring it within computationally tractable range has a good chance of clobbering SHA512 too. If we see a weakness in SHA256 coming gradually, we can transition to a new hash function after a certain block number. Everyone would have to upgrade their software by that block number. The new software would keep a new hash of all the old blocks to make sure they’re not replaced with another block with the same old hash.

wow.. Will there ever be an event that Satoshi didn't predict.. ?

actually no.