IBM Unveils World's First Quantum Computer for Commercial Use

[liberox]

As announced here - https://newsroom.ibm.com/2019-01-08-IBM-Unveils-Worlds-First-Integrated-Quantum-Computing-System-for-Commercial-Use

I expect a lot of FUD now, so let the experienced members explain (as I`m not technicaly able enough) what kind of consequences we must expect to calm the masses.

[1714887197]

1714887197

[1714887197]

1714887197

[bitfocus]

let's see what it brings to us, the crypto people, don't need to panic so warly.

[Artemis3]

Just don't reuse BTC addresses after 1 transaction.
More improvements are on the way...

[elda34b]

Quantum computing and its effect on cryptocurrency security has been discussed many times. There's no need to panic as most developer already realize this. In fact, they've several solutions like changing signature and so on. The solution to always use address for one time is also great. No need to worry, solutions will come pretty soon if this quantum computer really becomes a problem.

[avikz]

As announced here - https://newsroom.ibm.com/2019-01-08-IBM-Unveils-Worlds-First-Integrated-Quantum-Computing-System-for-Commercial-Use

I expect a lot of FUD now, so let the experienced members explain (as I`m not technicaly able enough) what kind of consequences we must expect to calm the masses.

Since it's coming from IBM newsroom, there's no question about the authenticity of this news. However, the issue has already been discussed many times here. Since you are not technically sound about quantum computing and its impact on blockchain, I would encourage you to read below links to understand the issue and the solution thoroughly.

How quantum computing will impact blockchain technology?
https://medium.com/blockstreethq/https-medium-com-shaanray-how-quantum-computing-will-impact-blockchain-technology-f69e4a3af25e

If quantum computers threaten blockchains, quantum blockchains could be the defense
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611022/if-quantum-computers-threaten-blockchains-quantum-blockchains-could-be-the-defense/

Hope it helps!

[merclyn]

I dont believe any quantum computers that are out or coming out anytime soon can break SHA256 yet.
When something like that comes out, we should have some time to react before it starts breaking things.

Dont forget that a computer that can break SHA256 is a huge threat to the entire internet, not just bitcoin.

[nutildah]

I'm interested in the wider implications of this story. Chiefly, I wonder if a provably functional quantum computer lends credence to the idea that a multiverse exists -- that there is an infinite array of parallel universes where reality is unfolding in a different way than it is in our universe.

No doubt in a nearby parallel universe I woulda HODL'd my 2014 altcoin collection and been a multimillionaire.

But then again there's also universes where I'm a billionaire for reinventing the online porn industry.

Then there's also a parallel universe where I'm a world-renowned disc golf champion, and disc golf is the world's most popular sport.

[HeRetiK]

I dont believe any quantum computers that are out or coming out anytime soon can break SHA256 yet.
When something like that comes out, we should have some time to react before it starts breaking things.

Dont forget that a computer that can break SHA256 is a huge threat to the entire internet, not just bitcoin.

It is worth noting that the real worry regarding quantum computing and Bitcoin is not a possible breakage of SHA256 but of ECDSA, Bitcoin's transaction signing algorithm.

For SHA256 there is currently no known algorithm that would give quantum computers an edge above classical CPUs, let alone ASICs.

As far as ECDSA is concerned things could turn out bad though... eventually. It will likely still at least take a decade or two until quantum computers become a practical risk for ECDSA, if not longer. Either way it should be plenty of time to harden Bitcoin transactions against possible quantum computing based attacks.

[franky1]

firstly the propaganda of "super positioning" "extra dimensional" vortex quantum sci-fi .. is just BS

the actual physical is that instead of say 0 volts represents 0 binary and 1 volt represents binary 1.. they now have 0.33 volts which can be another thing/choice/option and 0.66v can be another choice/option
(exact voltage differs from above as my example is just explanatory demo)

its not anything sci-fi .. it is not based on other universes/dimensions.. its just the 'dimension' of going from 2D to 3D.
yes the manufacturers wanted to hide it in wishy washy sci-fi buzzwording. but that was just try stop other industries copying the simplicity of moving from 01 to being 0123

anyway
they have not set in stone what this extra 'choice' can be. some IT industries may want to have it as a "both on" or "both off". some may want to use it for vectoring for instance one bit used to represent stand still or go forward. another bit would be stand still or go left. another bit would by stand still of go right.
but with a qubit that single qubit can inform: stand still, go forward, go left or go right.

in essence. calculating a hex string gets about a 2x efficiency. based on number of transistors needed. but converting base 4 to base 2 then takes a bit of processing so its a lil less than 2x efficiency to convert a qubit solved hex string into a hex string that a binary system would accept

where as vectors can be many times more efficient.

but here is the important part. ASICS mining bitcoin is the equivalent to over a trillion PC's CPU mining at the current hashrate. so IBM's qubit processors still have a way to go. an as we learned this month with ASIC's going from 14t/hash to 28t/hash per asic.  ASIC mining can outpace qubit expansion much faster

anyway. qubits will be used mor for industries where just 2 answer per transistor is not enough.
take DNA which has 4 identifiers(GACT). industries can program 0 as G 1 as A 2 as C and 3 T allowing for better DNA identifying and processing.

as for bitcoin. i wont be so much worried about brute forcing bitcoins block hashes. but small chance that qubit usage could be concentrated more towards the ECDSA. but even so. it will still be an effort

[jacafbiz]

I read one article in 2017 highlighting the negative impact quantum computers will have on Bitcoin, but what I want to ask is if this will only impact the Proof of Work coins only or it will also impact Proof of Stake coins also?

[kelz1]

Quantum computer hackers will have more fun with banks than bitcoin. If in the unlikely event that it becomes a threat people can switch to quantum resistant altcoins instead

[HeRetiK]

I read one article in 2017 highlighting the negative impact quantum computers will have on Bitcoin, but what I want to ask is if this will only impact the Proof of Work coins only or it will also impact Proof of Stake coins also?

Future quantum computers are more likely to attack the cryptographic algorithm used to sign transactions (ie. by deriving the private key from the public key); this is largely independent from whether PoW or PoS is used. Accordingly whether a coin will be vulnerable to quantum attacks will mostly depend on the respective coin's transaction formats and the type of public-key cryptography being used for the signatures.

It's rather unlikely that future quantum computers will have an advantage over ASICs, making quantum attacks (ie. 51% attacks using quantum computing) on PoW uneconomical. At the point where quantum computers are more effective at mining than ASICs they will probably be used to simply mine the coin, rather than to attack it.

Either way it's currently still pretty much impossible to tell how long it will take for quantum computing to become a threat to current common cryptographic standards.

[franky1]

I read one article in 2017 highlighting the negative impact quantum computers will have on Bitcoin, but what I want to ask is if this will only impact the Proof of Work coins only or it will also impact Proof of Stake coins also?

if they actually wasted time on brute forcing crypto it would be more negative impact on PoS.. but its not a threat yet as the processing power is still small in comparison to the 'collision attack' numbers required

EG to brute force a particular address would be billions of years even at 1000 tries a second using conventional systems. yet a crypto can change the algo before that where stakers can just move their stake to different tx formats every so often

quantum computing is so new they have not even got to a 'standard' where by they can start making operating systems using a quantum processor. so that shows how far they have to go

[hatshepsut93]

This article says that attacking Bitcoin requires 1500 qubits: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin

IBM Q System One has only 20, though they claim that they have better quality, meaning less errors.

I dont believe any quantum computers that are out or coming out anytime soon can break SHA256 yet.
When something like that comes out, we should have some time to react before it starts breaking things.

Dont forget that a computer that can break SHA256 is a huge threat to the entire internet, not just bitcoin.

For SHA256 there is currently no known algorithm that would give quantum computers an edge above classical CPUs, let alone ASICs.

Grover's algorithm? Not that it will break hash functions completely, but it will hugely reduce their security, so bigger hashsizes would be needed.

[franky1]

This article says that attacking Bitcoin requires 1500 qubits: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin

IBM Q System One has only 20, though they claim that they have better quality, meaning less errors.

I dont believe any quantum computers that are out or coming out anytime soon can break SHA256 yet.
When something like that comes out, we should have some time to react before it starts breaking things.

Dont forget that a computer that can break SHA256 is a huge threat to the entire internet, not just bitcoin.

For SHA256 there is currently no known algorithm that would give quantum computers an edge above classical CPUs, let alone ASICs.

Grover's algorithm? Not that it will break hash functions completely, but it will hugely reduce their security, so bigger hashsizes would be needed.

a hash is 32byte (64hex) which in binary is 256bit
                                     which in qubits is 128qubit
(though an asic hash thousands of chips per asic.. and thousands of asics.. QC just has one chip)

[pooya87]

I dont believe any quantum computers that are out or coming out anytime soon can break SHA256 yet.
When something like that comes out, we should have some time to react before it starts breaking things.

Dont forget that a computer that can break SHA256 is a huge threat to the entire internet, not just bitcoin.

For SHA256 there is currently no known algorithm that would give quantum computers an edge above classical CPUs, let alone ASICs.

Grover's algorithm? Not that it will break hash functions completely, but it will hugely reduce their security, so bigger hashsizes would be needed.

it is worth knowing that the problem with hashes is always hash collisions not breaking the hashes. they are still irreversible. even SHA1 that became obsolete is still irreversible but it is possible to find collisions in it.
as for changing, i believe it is best to change the algorithm instead of just increasing the size. for example using SHA3-256 instead of using a bigger size of SHA512

[killat]

If you check the specifications you'll see that this computer is still far from specifications of a real quantum computer as it was presented as a threat for Internet security. (Not only cryto)

[dothebeats]

I don't think this should warrant some sort of worrying from users as the quantum computer they unveiled are likely incapable of brute-forcing private keys and such. Also, it has been discussed countless of times here that you would need a lot of quantum computers and a lot of energy just to get a single, fascinating collision which would make the internet and cybersec community turn their heads and react. Also, I don't think this quantum computer would really be available for widespread commercial use, and IBM would probably ask for some details etc. for them to choose who would they sell the said tech to.