Quant computers in five years

[gollum]

Biggest threat to bitcoin and any other financial service in the world: quant compuets are here in five years.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/376693/q-a-silicon-success-brings-quantum-computers-closer/2#ixzz25ZkV6PsV

I guess NSA will have the prototypes a couple of years before the technology gets main stream.

[cbeast]

More likely they will be used to dominate the bitcoin mining.

[gollum]

More likely they will be used to dominate the bitcoin mining.

Im afraid NSA will use their quant computers to destroy the bitcoin network before we will be able to buy them for mining....
One quant processor is enough to compete with thousands of ASICs

[tpantlik]

look here, interesting comments - http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/zb6qu/first_quantum_chip_announced/

More likely they will be used to dominate the bitcoin mining.

Mining: CPU -> GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC -> QUANTUM  muhehehe 

[squid]

This is the same guy who has been overhyping this for the last few days. I have seen no new data (silicon photonics have been used before to create qubits already in the past, before this guys jan 2012 in an obscure journal) or newly published papers. This is merely an advertising blitz probably trying to secure some funding for his research group/center. Take everything this guy is saying with a grain of salt.

[Boussac]

The problem with this kind of predictions is that it can only be formulated by people with a vested interest in their realization. Reading the article, left me with the question: where are the facts ?

[sgravina]

Biggest threat to bitcoin and any other financial service in the world: quant compuets are here in five years.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/376693/q-a-silicon-success-brings-quantum-computers-closer/2#ixzz25ZkV6PsV

I guess NSA will have the prototypes a couple of years before the technology gets main stream.

That is a poor article.  It doesn't name the person making the predictions.  The basis of the predictions is an analogy to the development of transistors.  Something like, "Transistors make computers, our devices will make computers."  Nothing in that article about how to build a quantum computer.  If you are going to make one in 5 years you should be able to articulate why.

It is still not known what will become of quantum computing.

[vuce]

Even if, bitcoin will just switch to quantum resistant cryptography and everything will be fine.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Actually, if realised quantum computing can theoretically supply better digital money than bitcoin ...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.5127

Specifically, Public-key Quantum Money without secrets becomes theoretically possible.

http://mags.acm.org/communications/201208?pg=90#pg93

[kjj]

In 2001, the first (allegedly) quantum factoring was done, breaking 15 into 5 x 3.  Now, in 2012, a state of the art quantum computer has advanced to the point that it can factor 15 into 5 x 3, almost half of the time.  I think we have more than 5 years before QC starts threatening bitcoin.

[marcus_of_augustus]

In 2001, the first (allegedly) quantum factoring was done, breaking 15 into 5 x 3.  Now, in 2012, a state of the art quantum computer has advanced to the point that it can factor 15 into 5 x 3, almost half of the time.  I think we have more than 5 years before QC starts threatening bitcoin.

exactly ....

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

Actually, if realised quantum computing can theoretically supply better digital money than bitcoin ...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.5127

Specifically, Public-key Quantum Money without secrets becomes theoretically possible.

http://mags.acm.org/communications/201208?pg=90#pg93

Remember that Bitcoin is not just the ledger/validation/anti-counterfeiting capabilities, but also a set of rules controlling and decentralizing the issuance.  If I read your links correctly, the researchers are essentially proposing a system of digital/quantum monetary units that can be independently verified as genuine, thus leaving the issuance of money still in control of governments and banks.  It's basically a drop-in replacement for the existing monetary system, but made fully digital and non-counterfeitable.  So I'd argue that for most individuals, Bitcoin would still be better "money" if you valued features such as predictable and decreasing inflation or full decentralization.

Possibly some really smart new Satoshi could merge this idea of independent quantum monetary units with self-verification (i.e. not needing a Blockchain), with some Bitcoin-like system to restrict and decentralize issuance.  In that case it could legitimately claim to be an improvement over the current Bitcoin.

[mccorvic]

There is a joke within many tech circles that anything that is stated to be out in "five years" is vaporware.

Seriously, for whatever reason everything is always just five years away.  It must be some magical time frame that is far enough in the future that no one expects you to have any actual evidence, but close enough for people to get excited about it.

[Draino]

There is a joke within many tech circles that anything that is stated to be out in "five years" is vaporware.

Seriously, for whatever reason everything is always just five years away.  It must be some magical time frame that is far enough in the future that no one expects you to have any actual evidence, but close enough for people to get excited about it.

this

certain things are always 3-5 years away

[kjj]

There is a joke within many tech circles that anything that is stated to be out in "five years" is vaporware.

Seriously, for whatever reason everything is always just five years away.  It must be some magical time frame that is far enough in the future that no one expects you to have any actual evidence, but close enough for people to get excited about it.

this

certain things are always 3-5 years away

Haha!  IPv6 is coming "tomorrow" and has been since the early 90s.

[tpantlik]

There is a joke within many tech circles that anything that is stated to be out in "five years" is vaporware.

Seriously, for whatever reason everything is always just five years away.  It must be some magical time frame that is far enough in the future that no one expects you to have any actual evidence, but close enough for people to get excited about it.

this

certain things are always 3-5 years away

Haha!  IPv6 is coming "tomorrow" and has been since the early 90s.

But IPv6 is real working protocol, not a sci-fi HW :]

[mobile4ever]

In 2001, the first (allegedly) quantum factoring was done, breaking 15 into 5 x 3.  Now, in 2012, a state of the art quantum computer has advanced to the point that it can factor 15 into 5 x 3, almost half of the time.  I think we have more than 5 years before QC starts threatening bitcoin.

exactly ....

Quantums will not be doing much in five years. But then bitcoin is not going to be finished until around 2140 or so.

[flynn]

<sarcasm>
It looks like a rumor spread by BFL ...
</sarcasm>

[marcus_of_augustus]

Actually, if realised quantum computing can theoretically supply better digital money than bitcoin ...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.5127

Specifically, Public-key Quantum Money without secrets becomes theoretically possible.

http://mags.acm.org/communications/201208?pg=90#pg93

Remember that Bitcoin is not just the ledger/validation/anti-counterfeiting capabilities, but also a set of rules controlling and decentralizing the issuance.  If I read your links correctly, the researchers are essentially proposing a system of digital/quantum monetary units that can be independently verified as genuine, thus leaving the issuance of money still in control of governments and banks.  It's basically a drop-in replacement for the existing monetary system, but made fully digital and non-counterfeitable.  So I'd argue that for most individuals, Bitcoin would still be better "money" if you valued features such as predictable and decreasing inflation or full decentralization.

Wow you must have read through those links quickly  Actually the issuance of such money would be available to any entity in possession of the algorithm not just "still in the control of banks and government" ... big difference. There are other important differences that make the Public-Key Quantum Money much more like digital cash than the current blinded signature cash schemes out there, particularly there is no need to negotiate with the issuer to verify the validity of the coins. This is important since it makes the fully-anonymous coins easily transferable like cash without leaving a network trail of who's transacting with who and etc. Bitcoin cannot do this easily, and Bitcoin can't do fully anonymous at all, pseudo-anonymity will always be Bitcoins deficiency. The market values fungibility, that much is evidentially known with certainty, so I'd argue PKQM is theoretically 'better' money than Bitcoin on those grounds at least.

Possibly some really smart new Satoshi could merge this idea of independent quantum monetary units with self-verification (i.e. not needing a Blockchain), with some Bitcoin-like system to restrict and decentralize issuance.  In that case it could legitimately claim to be an improvement over the current Bitcoin.

We live in hope ... some of us may even be working on it, who knows? You are right that Satoshi has laid a groundwork for how it can be done and other technologies can incorporate whatever works best. The decentralised, restricted issuance, Open Source, network consensus part of Bitcoin technology is formidable to be sure.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

There are other important differences that make the Public-Key Quantum Money much more like digital cash than the current blinded signature cash schemes out there, particularly there is no need to negotiate with the issuer to verify the validity of the coins. This is important since it makes the fully-anonymous coins easily transferable like cash without leaving a network trail of who's transacting with who and etc. Bitcoin cannot do this easily, and Bitcoin can't do fully anonymous at all, pseudo-anonymity will always be Bitcoins deficiency. The market values fungibility, that much is evidentially known with certainty, so I'd argue PKQM is theoretically 'better' money than Bitcoin on those grounds at least.

Agreed, the potential full anonymity of the quantum system (which I failed to notice due to excessively quick skimming ), is a definite plus over Bitcoin.  In fact I consider the lack of automatic anonymity to be the single biggest long-term problem in Bitcoin, and I've always believed it will eventually need to be somehow solved at the protocol level, so that non-technical people can use Bitcoin via any client without inadvertently leaking personal financial metrics and relationships.  Undoubtedly, a blockchain/ledger system has definite pluses in some scenarios, but also noticeable unresolved minuses.