This is REALLY BAD news for Bitcoin

[NWO]

Not sure if this has been posted but I'm out. Going to wait until the next pump and I'm diversifying into better investments. This is scary for Bitcoin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

[justusranvier]

Mediocre trolling: 4/10

[NWO]

Mediocre trolling: 4/10

Who's the troll? The Washington Post? Did you even read it? You will be one of the few weeping when someone who finds BTC a threat and possesses one of these.

[BTCisthefuture]

Maybe this is a stupid question. But if some day the encryption bitcoin uses was cracked ,  couldn't the devlopers just switch to a different encryption ?

Or as years go on even if the current standards aren't cracked , would it be possible to switch to newer standards to always stay "ahead of the game" so to speak?

Sorry if it's a silly question, I don't know much about this area.

[NothinG]

+difficulty

[justusranvier]

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6021/bitcoin-is-not-quantum-safe-and-how-we-can-fix/

[sifo]

Abadon the ship! :-D
Bitcoin can deal with it. Time has proven it has capability to adjust. Single supercomputer cannot harm network.

[Mt. Dox]

Troll or stupid.

If you actually believed the NSA were not developing Quantum computing you are very naive.

The article linked above can be used to protect you right now without any changes to the protocol. But what most people do not mention when talking about quantum computers is that we have had public key cryptosystems that are quantum-safe for over 30 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEliece_cryptosystem

Released in 1978 and is safe from Shor's algorithm. Absolutely no reason why we can't use something similar to this instead of ECC once it's been studied more and proven safe.

[black_swan]

NSA don't need quantum to take down bitcoin.
The US can make it illegal for any merchants to accept cryptos, much cheaper than spending money on technology.

[Operatr]

By the time they can do that, there will be quantum encryption too...

[BlackShadowX1]

http://rt.com/usa/quantum-computer-nsa-encryption-100/

[Altoidnerd]

This article quotes an MIT professor saying the technology is likely 5 years away. Many companies are openly building these http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html  

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

>>In 2001, Shor's algorithm was demonstrated by a group at IBM, who factored 15 into 3 × 5, using an NMR implementation of a quantum computer with 7 qubits.[3] ... In 2012, the factorization of 15 was repeated.[7] Also in 2012, the factorization of 21 was achieved, setting the record for the largest number factored with a quantum computer.[8]

Maybe this is a stupid question. But if some day the encryption bitcoin uses was cracked ,  couldn't the devlopers just switch to a different encryption ?

Or as years go on even if the current standards aren't cracked , would it be possible to switch to newer standards to always stay "ahead of the game" so to speak?

Sorry if it's a silly question, I don't know much about this area.

Pretty much yes.  Integer factorization scales better for quantum computers, but quantum computers offer little or no improvement in the speed of other computations.  

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0201143v2.pdf

[Bitcoinpro]

The NSA found a faster way to move bits around.

[Bitcoinpro]

Mediocre trolling: 4/10

Who's the troll? The Washington Post? Did you even read it? You will be one of the few weeping when someone who finds BTC a threat and possesses one of these.

the Washington post, no i didn't read it

[Nancarrow]

Maybe this is a stupid question. But if some day the encryption bitcoin uses was cracked ,  couldn't the devlopers just switch to a different encryption ?

Or as years go on even if the current standards aren't cracked , would it be possible to switch to newer standards to always stay "ahead of the game" so to speak?

Sorry if it's a silly question, I don't know much about this area.

No, it's not a silly question, and broadly speaking the answer is YES, the standards can be changed to stay ahead of the game. I believe it would require a so-called 'hard-fork' which is bitcoin-speak for 'we'd better damn well have most people on board with this or it'll get ugly', but it's pretty clear everyone WOULD be okay with it.

But as several people have explained before, even a fully working quantum computer wouldn't pose an immediate threat to SHA256. Long before it did, we could simply move to SHA512. Basically, 2^256 is such a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge number, that even its square root is still huuuuuuuuge enough.

The trolling here is not of course in the Washington Post, but in the OP's interpretation of their article. In fact even the attempt at misdirecting the blame is clumsy. OP, you're a really third-rate troll.

[El Dude]

op is the biggest troll on this site

[gbianchi]

do you really think if quantum computer where build
and cryptografy crash, Bitcoin is your problem ?

When (if) quantum computing happens , ALL RSA will be opened....
so 95% of secure internet  protocols is opened....
and bitcoin will be the least of the problems

[gamer4156]

I was reading somewhere about if we were to change encryption methods (maybe to sha512) it would make the current asic miners obsolete and require a whole new asic to mine. Please correct.

[Piper67]

do you really think if quantum computer where build
and cryptografy crash, Bitcoin is your problem ?

When (if) quantum computing happens , ALL RSA will be opened....
so 95% of secure internet  protocols is opened....
and bitcoin will be the least of the problems

This. If someone manages to come up with a quantum computer that can break current crypto, we have much bigger fish to fry.

That being said, it seems a true quantum computer is decades away, if it's ever going to be built at all. And while the comparison to things like the speed of sound and manned flight is cute, there really are some things out there that haven't been achieved (faster than light speed travel, for instance, or, on a more quantum level, an accurate determination of the position and velocity of a particle), because they are innately impossible.

[Dr Bloggood]

Just going by the article itself and quoting:

“I don’t think we’re likely to have the type of quantum computer the NSA wants within at least five years, in the absence of a significant breakthrough maybe much longer,” Lloyd told The Washington Post in a recent interview.

That's good enough for me.