[BREAKING] Quantum Computer Hits. BFL, bASIC etc all dead. End of BTC?

[MPOE-PR]

Integrated quantum computer system with 128 qubit chipset AVAILABLE FOR PREORDER NOW. Deliveries slated to begin early January. No concerns of Chinese New Year.

Link: http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html

Sorry everyone. The jig, it is up.

[1715289520]

1715289520

[1715289520]

1715289520

[1715289520]

1715289520

[SlickTheNick]

Is this legit? I thought we were years away from being able to build an actual quantum computer?

[mcgravier]

If this is legit, we need to switch encryption to SHA-3 But it seems very unlikely for this to be true.

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

It likely costs more money than any of us have. Also, it could very well be a scam of some sorts.

[mccorvic]

BREAKING NEWS: I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[jasinlee]

BREAKING NEWS: I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Does it have a massive mpex troll under it?

[jcpham]

BREAKING NEWS: I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

How much is this bridge of yours and do you accept tenebrix?

[MPOE-PR]

BREAKING NEWS: I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Does it hash?

[mccorvic]

BREAKING NEWS: I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Does it have a massive mpex troll under it?

It has a wide variety of trolls under, above, on, and next to the bridge.

How much is this bridge of yours and do you accept tenebrix?

It cost 5trillion BTC.



But seriously, I know of scientists who have reportedly been duped by "perpetual motion" machines so I'm not surprised that they could find a few that would claim that this is REALLY FOR SURE quantum anything.  When the vast majority of researchers state that even the simplest form of quantum computing is decades away I'm going to be highly skeptical to the utmost degree.

[wormbog]

According to the site,

"Our current superconducting 128-qubit processor chip is housed inside a cryogenics system within a 10 square meter shielded room."

I'm going to cancel my Jalapeno order and start ordering parts for the cryogenic cooling system right away...

[MPOE-PR]

When the vast majority of researchers state that even the simplest form of quantum computing is decades away I'm going to be highly skeptical to the utmost degree.

I do not appreciate your FUD and mud slinging at an obviously legitimate company which is actually registered, and made its actual logo itself (in MS Paint).

Where is this community headed when serious projects of serious companies with serious delivery dates and that can be preordered are mocked and abused by trolls such as yourself!

[mccorvic]

I do not appreciate your FUD and mud slinging at an obviously legitimate company which is actually registered, and made its actual logo itself (in MS Paint).

Where is this community headed when serious projects of serious companies with serious delivery dates and that can be preordered are mocked and abused by trolls such as yourself!

I see what you did there

FULL DISCLOSURE: I don't have any ASIC on preorder

[Mike Hearn]

We have covered this topic many times before. Quantum computing is not a threat to Bitcoin in any reasonable timeframe. Does this need to be in the FAQ?

It's a 128-qubit machine. If you have to ask the price, that means you can't afford it (nor program it). It requires a specially built facility to house it.

From Proos and Zalka (2008):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quantph/0301141.pdf

We show in some detail how to implement Shor’s efficient quantum algorithm for discrete logarithms for the particular case of elliptic curve groups. It turns out that for this problem a smaller quantum computer can solve problems further beyond current computing than for integer factorisation. A 160 bit elliptic curve cryptographic key could be broken on a quantum computer using around 1000 qubits while factoring the security-wise equivalent 1024 bit RSA modulus would require about 2000 qubits. In this paper we only consider elliptic curves over GF(p) and not yet the equally important ones over GF(2^n) or other finite fields. The main technical difficulty is to implement Euclid’s gcd algorithm to compute multiplicative inverses modulo p. As the runtime of Euclid’s algorithm depends on the input, one difficulty encountered is the “quantum halting problem”

Bitcoin uses the secp256k1 elliptic curve. This means 256-bit keys on a Koblitz curve. The p means prime field, GF(p).

The NSA informs us that a 256 bit elliptic curve key is equivalent to a 3072 bit RSA modulus. Therefore 1000 qubits is nowhere near close enough to solve even much weaker keys than the one Bitcoin uses, and the D-Wave machine provides only 128.

Even assuming quantum computers get much cheaper over time, you're not going to have a cryogenically cooled room sized machine in your house any time soon. And even if one day this becomes possible, there are several mitigating factors:

• Money sent to a Bitcoin address that has never been used before cannot be stolen even with a fully-capable quantum computer because the address is hashed. So by using wallets that never re-use addresses this problem goes away.
• Crypto schemes based on integer lattices are becoming more efficient every year, and are resistant to quantum computers (or at least, nobody yet discovered an equivalent to Shor's algorithm for them. We could switch to one of these schemes if necesary.

[MPOE-PR]

We have covered this topic many times before.

I think you missed the gist of this discussion. Re-read is in order ty.

[nebulus]

We have covered this topic many times before.

I think you missed the gist of this discussion. Re-read is in order ty.

Said like a true newb...

[greyhawk]

Is this legit? I thought we were years away from being able to build an actual quantum computer?

Oh, they exist alright. They're even in use already.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08/d-wave-quantum-computer-solves-protein-folding-problem.html


Also they cost 10,000,000 $ per unit and are application specific, so.... yeah, you don't really want one.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I will leave this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems#Criticism

Also as Mike points out even if true and even if it could be used to cost effectively break x bit ECDSA keypairs, 128 qubits is insufficient by at least 2 orders of magnitude to break a 256bit ECDSA keypair.   The estimate for researchers (in paper above) is ~6 logical qubits per bit in the keysize of ECDSA.   So 6*256 = 1500 qubits.   Note this is logical qubits.  With only a single physical qubit per logic qubit the amount of error and noise would simply make any results worthless.  A ballpark figure is 12 to 20 physical qubits (to perform error code correction algorithms) per logical qubit is estimated.   So to break 256bit ECDS would require in the ballpark of a single 24,000 physical qubits computer.   A 128 qubit computer could break 2 to 3 bit ECDSA keys.  Then again I could break them with a notepad and a good pencil a lot faster.

If/when massive QC start being built a "simple" interim step would be to make a new address type which uses a larger ECDSA curve.  It would require a hard fork but would remain backwards compatible with existing addresses.  Create a new address standard, give it a new version (first digit of address) and use a 384bit (or even 512bit) ECDSA keypair.    Once the network transistions over users could send funds to these "high security version 2" addresses.

The cost to increase the key size is much smaller than the cost to build increasingly larger QC.  It also has the added bonus that larger QC may simply not be possible (with current tech).  So hypothetically someday it may be possible to break 256bit at high cost but completely impossible to break 384bit one at any cost.  Unlike classical computing you can't combine multiple smaller qubit QC to gain a higher computing power.  They aren't parallel like that.

[BurtW]

Dang, I wish I had read the above response before I panicked and dumped all my BTC because MPOE-PR told me Bitcoin was broken.

[MPOE-PR]

I will leave this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems#Criticism

Also as Mike points out even if true and even if it could be used to cost effectively break x bit ECDSA keypairs, 128 qubits is insufficient by at least 2 orders of magnitude to break a 256bit ECDSA keypair.   The estimate for researchers (in paper above) is ~6 logical qubits per bit in the keysize of ECDSA.   So 6*256 = 1500 qubits.   Note this is logical qubits.  With only a single physical qubit per logic qubit the amount of error and noise would simply make any results worthless.  A ballpark figure is 12 to 20 physical qubits (to perform error code correction algorithms) per logical qubit is estimated.   So to break 256bit ECDS would require in the ballpark of a single 24,000 physical qubits computer.   A 128 qubit computer could break 2 to 3 bit ECDSA keys.  Then again I could break them with a notepad and a good pencil a lot faster.

If/when massive QC start being built a "simple" interim step would be to make a new address type which uses a larger ECDSA curve.  It would require a hard fork but would remain backwards compatible with existing addresses.  Create a new address standard, give it a new version (first digit of address) and use a 384bit (or even 512bit) ECDSA keypair.    Once the network transistions over users could send funds to these "high security version 2" addresses.

The cost to increase the key size is much smaller than the cost to build increasingly larger QC.  It also has the added bonus that larger QC may simply not be possible (with current tech).  So hypothetically someday it may be possible to break 256bit at high cost but completely impossible to break 384bit one at any cost.  Unlike classical computing you can't combine multiple smaller qubit QC to gain a higher computing power.  They aren't parallel like that.

Should I be quoting Inaba to you just about now?

[MoonShadow]

MPOE-PR, if you reall believe that this is a true threat, then you should also believe that the exchange value of your bitcoins is going to tank soon.  I, however, don't believe that is a near term risk.  So I willing to offer you $5 per bitcoin, for each and every bitcoin your have.  I'd be willing to take out a bank loan just to be able to do so.  Let me know when you're ready.

[ElectricMucus]

I will leave this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems#Criticism

Also as Mike points out even if true and even if it could be used to cost effectively break x bit ECDSA keypairs, 128 qubits is insufficient by at least 2 orders of magnitude to break a 256bit ECDSA keypair.   The estimate for researchers (in paper above) is ~6 logical qubits per bit in the keysize of ECDSA.   So 6*256 = 1500 qubits.   Note this is logical qubits.  With only a single physical qubit per logic qubit the amount of error and noise would simply make any results worthless.  A ballpark figure is 12 to 20 physical qubits (to perform error code correction algorithms) per logical qubit is estimated.   So to break 256bit ECDS would require in the ballpark of a single 24,000 physical qubits computer.   A 128 qubit computer could break 2 to 3 bit ECDSA keys.  Then again I could break them with a notepad and a good pencil a lot faster.

If/when massive QC start being built a "simple" interim step would be to make a new address type which uses a larger ECDSA curve.  It would require a hard fork but would remain backwards compatible with existing addresses.  Create a new address standard, give it a new version (first digit of address) and use a 384bit (or even 512bit) ECDSA keypair.    Once the network transistions over users could send funds to these "high security version 2" addresses.

The cost to increase the key size is much smaller than the cost to build increasingly larger QC.  It also has the added bonus that larger QC may simply not be possible (with current tech).  So hypothetically someday it may be possible to break 256bit at high cost but completely impossible to break 384bit one at any cost.  Unlike classical computing you can't combine multiple smaller qubit QC to gain a higher computing power.  They aren't parallel like that.

Vesuvius

In early 2012, D-Wave Systems revealed a 512-qubit code named Vesuvius,[21] which it expects to launch before the end of 2012.[22]

If that is true they seem to exceed Moore's Law. But even if they are not given any exponential increase 24000 qubit aren't that far away.

To emphasise this: According to your own estimation a 512bit ecdsa would require 48000 qubits.

[MPOE-PR]

MPOE-PR, if you reall believe that this is a true threat, then you should also believe that the exchange value of your bitcoins is going to tank soon.  I, however, don't believe that is a near term risk.  So I willing to offer you $5 per bitcoin, for each and every bitcoin your have.  I'd be willing to take out a bank loan just to be able to do so.  Let me know when you're ready.

Nothing but naysayers on this forum. Why all the negativity?

PREORDER NOW

(Good pick on Ron Paul 2012 btw. I trust that wasn't another bank loan?)

[MoonShadow]

MPOE-PR, if you reall believe that this is a true threat, then you should also believe that the exchange value of your bitcoins is going to tank soon.  I, however, don't believe that is a near term risk.  So I willing to offer you $5 per bitcoin, for each and every bitcoin your have.  I'd be willing to take out a bank loan just to be able to do so.  Let me know when you're ready.

Nothing but naysayers on this forum. Why all the negativity?

I'm not knocking your position, I just don't agree, and believe that I stand to profit if I'm correct.  Conversely, you stand to profit if I'm incorrect; as you'd sell higher than zero

(Good pick on Ron Paul 2012 btw. I trust that wasn't another bank loan?)

I knew years ago that Ron Paul would not be president.  That has zero bearing on who I vote for, however.

[fghj]

They do things that this kitten wants https://dwave.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/quantum-computing-and-light-switches/
It doesn't look like breaking ECDSA or SHA-256.

[ElectricMucus]

They do things that this kitten wants https://dwave.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/quantum-computing-and-light-switches/
It doesn't look like breaking ECDSA or SHA-256.

The point here is: NP-Complete problems aren't inherently different when it comes to their difficulty in solving them.

[MPOE-PR]

I am sorry to announce that there have been some fabrication delays at the secret fabrication plant which does exist and deliveries will be happening no earlier than February 31st. For more details see here.

PS. To all the trolls that posted here making false claims: I'm not answering to you because you are not real customers.

[Beans]

I will leave this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems#Criticism

Also as Mike points out even if true and even if it could be used to cost effectively break x bit ECDSA keypairs, 128 qubits is insufficient by at least 2 orders of magnitude to break a 256bit ECDSA keypair.   The estimate for researchers (in paper above) is ~6 logical qubits per bit in the keysize of ECDSA.   So 6*256 = 1500 qubits.   Note this is logical qubits.  With only a single physical qubit per logic qubit the amount of error and noise would simply make any results worthless.  A ballpark figure is 12 to 20 physical qubits (to perform error code correction algorithms) per logical qubit is estimated.   So to break 256bit ECDS would require in the ballpark of a single 24,000 physical qubits computer.   A 128 qubit computer could break 2 to 3 bit ECDSA keys.  Then again I could break them with a notepad and a good pencil a lot faster.

If/when massive QC start being built a "simple" interim step would be to make a new address type which uses a larger ECDSA curve.  It would require a hard fork but would remain backwards compatible with existing addresses.  Create a new address standard, give it a new version (first digit of address) and use a 384bit (or even 512bit) ECDSA keypair.    Once the network transistions over users could send funds to these "high security version 2" addresses.

The cost to increase the key size is much smaller than the cost to build increasingly larger QC.  It also has the added bonus that larger QC may simply not be possible (with current tech).  So hypothetically someday it may be possible to break 256bit at high cost but completely impossible to break 384bit one at any cost.  Unlike classical computing you can't combine multiple smaller qubit QC to gain a higher computing power.  They aren't parallel like that.

Vesuvius

In early 2012, D-Wave Systems revealed a 512-qubit code named Vesuvius,[21] which it expects to launch before the end of 2012.[22]

If that is true they seem to exceed Moore's Law. But even if they are not given any exponential increase 24000 qubit aren't that far away.

To emphasise this: According to your own estimation a 512bit ecdsa would require 48000 qubits.

Moore's Law is just some guys guess, it has nothing to do with fact. It has already been proven to be wrong anyway. There is no way to chart computational growth for the future.

[Third Way]

BREAKING NEWS: I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Does it hash?

You bet I hash, ehehehehe

[smoothie]

Dang, I wish I had read the above response before I panicked and dumped all my BTC because MPOE-PR told me Bitcoin was broken.

What ever happened to that 10,000 BTC you left with Pirate because you believed he would pay? LOL 

[BurtW]

Dang, I wish I had read the above response before I panicked and dumped all my BTC because MPOE-PR told me Bitcoin was broken.

What ever happened to that 10,000 BTC you left with Pirate because you believed he would pay? LOL 

I lost it.  Any other stupid questions?

[greyhawk]

Maybe he'll pay them back?

[jcpham]

troll, troll, troll your boat...

hi burtw!
hi MPOE-PR (why do you type so many words, my kitchen doesn't have forums)
hi smoothie!

...actually there are some smart people "threading it up" here.

[ImNotHerb]

Integrated quantum computer system with 128 qubit chipset AVAILABLE FOR PREORDER NOW. Deliveries slated to begin early January. No concerns of Chinese New Year.

Link: http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html

Sorry everyone. The jig, it is up.

Quantum computers are one of those technologies like fusion power that is perpetually "only 10 or 20 years away". I would bet every BTC I have that this is a scam to cash in on the hype surrounding quantum computers as opposed to whatever is inside their "shielded black box" is capable of doing. A good tell is that they're searching for "investors" (rubes) rather than publishing in physics journals.

[greyhawk]

Integrated quantum computer system with 128 qubit chipset AVAILABLE FOR PREORDER NOW. Deliveries slated to begin early January. No concerns of Chinese New Year.

Link: http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html

Sorry everyone. The jig, it is up.

Quantum computers are one of those technologies like fusion power that is perpetually "only 10 or 20 years away". I would bet every BTC I have that this is a scam to cash in on the hype surrounding quantum computers as opposed to whatever is inside their "shielded black box" is capable of doing. A good tell is that they're searching for "investors" (rubes) rather than publishing in physics journals.

Uhuh.... "Nature" not good enough now?

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120813/srep00571/full/srep00571.html

This was done using your supposed "scam" machine.

[wachtwoord]

Cool thanks for sharing!

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Integrated quantum computer system with 128 qubit chipset AVAILABLE FOR PREORDER NOW. Deliveries slated to begin early January. No concerns of Chinese New Year.

Link: http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html

Sorry everyone. The jig, it is up.

Quantum computers are one of those technologies like fusion power that is perpetually "only 10 or 20 years away". I would bet every BTC I have that this is a scam to cash in on the hype surrounding quantum computers as opposed to whatever is inside their "shielded black box" is capable of doing. A good tell is that they're searching for "investors" (rubes) rather than publishing in physics journals.

Uhuh.... "Nature" not good enough now?

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120813/srep00571/full/srep00571.html

This was done using your supposed "scam" machine.

And to think I had you pegged as a light reader. My bad!

FWIW, the site has some cool images:

[greyhawk]

And to think I had you pegged as a light reader. My bad!

I am. Tried it once without light. Didn't work out all that well.

[ImNotHerb]

An impressive sounding link whose details leave much to be desired:

"Even though the quantum device follows a quantum annealing protocol, the odds of measuring the ground state are not necessarily high. For example, in the 81 qubit experiment, only 13 out of 10,000 measurements yielded the desired solution."
...
"...the cases presented here still can be solved on a classical computer by exact enumeration (the six-amino-acid problem has only 40 possible configurations)..."

[MPOE-PR]

troll, troll, troll your boat...

hi burtw!
hi MPOE-PR (why do you type so many words, my kitchen doesn't have forums)
hi smoothie!

...actually there are some smart people "threading it up" here.

Urmom called. Wants kitchen back.

Also, further breaking news: BFL will deliver ASICs no later than January, 2014.

[jcpham]

troll, troll, troll your boat...

hi burtw!
hi MPOE-PR (why do you type so many words, my kitchen doesn't have forums)
hi smoothie!

...actually there are some smart people "threading it up" here.

Urmom called. Wants kitchen back.

Also, further breaking news: BFL will deliver ASICs no later than January, 2014.

All we have to eat is potatoes! I'm starving and I'm so cold. Keep me warm.

[HDSolar]

Sweet another company I can pre-order with.  I wounder if they take PayPal 

[ElectricMucus]

Sweet another company I can pre-order with.  I wounder if they take PayPal 

Well at least they demonstrated something with a prototype.


Btw: Anybody remember Steorn?
You know these irish overunity magnetic motor guys from 2006. 

[c4n10]

It's going to be at least a few years before quantum computers are ready to compete with standard computers, the first quantum computers won't be able to do much more than work a single algorithm. Here's an interesting article that gives a rough idea of where quantum computers are at right now:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/12/new-form-of-quantum-computation-.html

Also, if you go to the page you linked and you click on their quantum computer to get more details, you can get a rough idea of the cost of this thing by sentences such as "Our current superconducting 128-qubit processor chip is housed inside a cryogenics system within a 10 square meter shielded room."

I really don't see this being a threat to bitcoin any time in the near future...

[c4n10]

Sweet another company I can pre-order with.  I wounder if they take PayPal 

Well at least they demonstrated something with a prototype.


Btw: Anybody remember Steorn?
You know these irish overunity magnetic motor guys from 2006. 

LOL... Steorn...

[MysteryMiner]

Integrated quantum computer system with 128 qubit chipset AVAILABLE FOR PREORDER NOW. Deliveries slated to begin early January.

Butterfly Labs scam taken to the next level! Time to preorder!

[MysteryMiner]

BREAKING NEWS: I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

How much is this bridge of yours and do you accept tenebrix?

I LOL'd

It was done already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eifel_Tower#Subsequent_events

1925
    The con artist Victor Lustig "sold" the Eifel tower for scrap metal on two separate, but related occasions.

</offtopic>

[BurtW]

Here is a twist.  From:

http://www.dailytech.com/Researchers+Change+the+Laws+of+Physics+With+SubAbsolute+Zero+Quantum+Gas/article29557.htm

SubAbsolute Zero Quantum devices might break Bitcoin!!!  Oh nooooooo.

Negative [absolute] temperature materials could be a boon to both theoretical particle physics and quantum computing.  But much work needs to be done to understand their bizarre new spin on physics.

[ciphermonk]

Just to clarify an important point: People are playing with words when they use "quantum" to describe their new chips. It's not that hard to build a processor using 128 atoms to perform useful calculations.

A "real" quantum computer requires every qubit in the system to be entangled with all of the other qubits. It is from this entanglement property that quantum computers experience a significant speed-up compared to classical computers. Without entanglement, you're left with a computer that plays in the same ball park as your ipad. Creating and maintaining this entanglement is highly unstable. Systems tend to break down very quickly as you add qubits. It is even debated whether entanglement is physically possible to maintain for any significant number of qubits.

To date, I believe we have only been able to factor 3x5=15 with 7 qubits and more recently 11x13=143 on 4 qubits. However, for the second result, it is debated whether entanglement actually occurred.

So don't worry about these silly claim Hope this clarifies it a bit!

Edit: Okay it's pretty clear everyone thinks this is fake ! I'll leave my post for info

[MysteryMiner]

SubAbsolute Zero Quantum devices might break Bitcoin!!!  Oh nooooooo.

Or it can possibly take crypto to new level that was unachievable with classical digital computers. Like Bitcoin was enabled by fast network connections and CPUs making transaction processing a breeze instead of freeze.

Anyway we are possibly decades before quantum computers are fully functional. Meanwhile the biggest threat to Bitcoin are ZOG busting Bitcoin users and sending to SEMEN camps. No quantum computers needed for this to happen.