Quantum computing resistant coins?

[merc84]

I built Nexus with 1024 bit SHA3 and sect571r1 ECC for the greatest quantum resistance. Higher bit length is exponential increase in security.

Thank You,
Viz.

You are the creator of Nexus?

Yes he is the creator of Nexus.

[Ayers]

On classical computers:
- Hash inversion requires 2^N tries
- Birthday paradox allows to generate collisions with 2^(N/2) tries

On quantum computers:
- Hash inversion requires 2^(N/2) tries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm)
- Birthday paradox combined with Grover's algo gives 2^(N/3) tries for collisions

So, 384-bit hash gives 192-bit security for inversion and 128-bit security for collision. For classical computers 384-bit hash has 384-bit security again inversion and 192-bit security against collision.

so this is like doing the square root of 2 right? i mean a quantum computer have a computional power that allow it to make the square root of 2 on the strength of the hash compared to a normal computer

[Come-from-Beyond]

so this is like doing the square root of 2 right?

Right.

[QRL]

Bingo!

Nexus is using 571bit priv keys, still as i believe it is using elliptic curve cryptography but having a greater bit length means it would require much more qbits to crack than bitcoin for example. Theres no such thing as quantum proof only quantum resistant cryptography.
 
Also regarding the argument that bitcoin can simply fork to a new algo, no one can even agree on how to solve the scaling issue with bitcoin i wouldn't bet on a hard fork to change anything in bitcoin being adopted in a short span of time. The time in which it took to reach consensus would leave any priv key used more than once vulnerable.

[Videlicet]

Even if Bitcoin forked and updated their keys, all previous keys "including satoshi's" will be rendered vulnerable and if they are cracked someone would be able to dump those early BTC on the markets. Upgrading the keys requires you to also have all keys from previous moved into a more secure key.

Thank You,
Viz.

[Ayers]

Even if Bitcoin forked and updated their keys, all previous keys "including satoshi's" will be rendered vulnerable and if they are cracked someone would be able to dump those early BTC on the markets. Upgrading the keys requires you to also have all keys from previous moved into a more secure key.

Thank You,
Viz.

this also make all the lost coins vulnerable, because no one can move those anymore, but perhaps if they hard fork to make the network resistant to quantum, they can also change something in the code to recover all those key, or better make them useless in the new chain, even so if someone with quantum want to break those old key he/she will have worthless coins

[Videlicet]

This is where we get to the double edged sword, let's say all keys had a mandatory "upgrade" this would mean that essentially every person "against their will" would be forced to make a new key pair, or at least their wallet code would be forced to make a new key pair. To create a new secured key is also going to have to require the key to be assigned into the blockchain with a balance that is associated with its previous key which would require the owner to make the signature creating a swarm of transactions and a big mess.

It also puts code into the core that essentially breaks any choice or privacy if your keys just randomly assign themselves to another key and make a transaction without you having any say in it. In my opinion, the best thing for Bitcoin now would be variety of keys available for choice so that people can slowly start the transition now rather than waiting until the eleventh hour.

Thank You,
Viz.