Quantum supremacy and Satoshi blocks

[Tolosi]

If this new thing quantum supremacy is for real it will force the current owner or owners of first 50.000 blocks which have never moved to do something with them early enough or risk to loose them in a quantum attack if they are too late. If quantum works those coins will move anyway because they are ideal targets.

It would be interesting to hear other people's oppinions on this !

[1714651038]

1714651038

[1714651038]

1714651038

[hatshepsut93]

First, there's no real quantum supremacy right now, Google didn't develop a quantum computer that can crack modern crypto today, they have just (supposedly) developer a quantum computer that is better than normal computers in solving some specific small problem.

Next, Bitcoin protects public keys with hashing, and they are only revealed when an address is used - since Satoshi didn't send his coins to a reaused address, quantum computer wouldn't be able to easily steal the coins even if it is capable of breaking ECDSA.

So, don't spread panic and misinformation.

[squatter]

First, there's no real quantum supremacy right now, Google didn't develop a quantum computer that can crack modern crypto today, they have just (supposedly) developer a quantum computer that is better than normal computers in solving some specific small problem.

In fact, the problem was specifically designed to be difficult for classical computers -- bit of a hollow victory if you ask me!

It’s a hotly anticipated goal, and one intended to mark the beginning of a new era of quantum computation (SN: 6/29/17). But it’s also largely symbolic: The calculation in question serves no practical purpose and is designed to be difficult for classical computers, standard computers that are not rooted in quantum physics.

Next, Bitcoin protects public keys with hashing, and they are only revealed when an address is used - since Satoshi didn't send his coins to a reaused address, quantum computer wouldn't be able to easily steal the coins even if it is capable of breaking ECDSA.

The Satoshi outputs are mostly (or completely) pay-to-pubkey, so they actually are vulnerable to a theoretical quantum computing breakthrough:

However these early versions of Bitcoin also supported a Pay to IP address feature where your wallet would contact the wallet at a given IP address and request a scriptPubKey to send to. The response would be a P2PK scriptPubKey and thus you would create P2PK outputs.

Blocks too were mined to P2PK outputs, and in fact, Bitcoin Core still does this. Bitcoin Core's internal miner (which is only used for regtest and testnet now), still creates P2PK outputs instead of P2PKH outputs.

[mikeneaal]

thanks for sharing this information

[NeuroticFish]

1. The vulnerable addresses are the ones reused, from where people have sent out Bitcoin and they keep receiving coins there. Satoshi's untouched coins are safer than you'd think.

2. Quantum supremacy is a commercial bulls**t. Quantum computers are too expensive to run and noone will run for such problems, at least now in the experimental phase. And noone will "buy one for himself" just to see if he's lucky and can "hack" those addresses.

[squatter]

1. The vulnerable addresses are the ones reused, from where people have sent out Bitcoin and they keep receiving coins there. Satoshi's untouched coins are safer than you'd think.

The Satoshi addresses are just as vulnerable as reused addresses. The early versions of the Bitcoin software mined blocks to pay-to-pubkey outputs, so their public keys are already exposed.

2. Quantum supremacy is a commercial bulls**t. Quantum computers are too expensive to run and noone will run for such problems, at least now in the experimental phase. And noone will "buy one for himself" just to see if he's lucky and can "hack" those addresses.

I tend to agree. However, we should keep in mind that government researchers may be years or decades ahead of the private sector.

[Artemis3]

1. The vulnerable addresses are the ones reused, from where people have sent out Bitcoin and they keep receiving coins there. Satoshi's untouched coins are safer than you'd think.

2. Quantum supremacy is a commercial bulls**t. Quantum computers are too expensive to run and noone will run for such problems, at least now in the experimental phase. And noone will "buy one for himself" just to see if he's lucky and can "hack" those addresses.

Of course the first owners will be those large companies and State institutions. Think of how classical computers started in the 40ies, pretty much as military secret, it took nearly half a century for the technology to reach the masses...

So, in the beginning, you can imagine who will have the first operating quantum computers, and no, they are not going to tell you. Of course its unlikely those entities will go after Bitcoin, but if the chance is there it should be addressed.

Even if it still theoretical, it should be considered and not keep ignoring the issue as if it doesn't exist. It does.

[NeuroticFish]

The Satoshi addresses are just as vulnerable as reused addresses. The early versions of the Bitcoin software mined blocks to pay-to-pubkey outputs, so their public keys are already exposed.

Interesting, I didn't know that. You just gave me something good to research for.

Even if it still theoretical, it should be considered and not keep ignoring the issue as if it doesn't exist. It does.

Bitcoin already has some sort of quantum resistance. You can read more in the wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin
So the issue is far from ignored.

[Herbert2020]

I tend to agree. However, we should keep in mind that government researchers may be years or decades ahead of the private sector.

that's true.
but also these things are "math related" and problems like that are usually solved in academic circles not by "government researchers" nor by "private sector". and so far all the academic papers have been trying to solve the ECDLP and optimize it but haven't been any kind of breakthroughs to make it any less secure.
quantum computing may increase the speed but i don't think it is enough to still solve it.