Quantum Computers to Reveal if Satoshi Is Alive?

[Publictalk792]

If quantum computers get strong enough in next 20 years or so they could break security of current Bitcoin addresses. Anyone who wants to keep their Bitcoin safe in long run including Satoshi would need to move their Bitcoin to new addresses that are protected against these powerful computers.
This creates exciting possibility. If we suddenly see very first Bitcoins ever mined start to move in future it could mean that whoever holds keys to those coins is still around and taking action to protect them. It would not prove for sure that it is real Satoshi but it would definitely make people think it is.
Back also suggested that Bitcoin should get ready for this possibility by having way to switch to these new safer types of addresses when needed. This seems like smart way to handle future problem without rushing into big changes right now. It shows that Bitcoin needs to keep updating itself to stay safe as technology changes.

[Jating]

If quantum computers get strong enough in next 20 years or so they could break security of current Bitcoin addresses. Anyone who wants to keep their Bitcoin safe in long run including Satoshi would need to move their Bitcoin to new addresses that are protected against these powerful computers.

If you only exposed your public key that they can try to break and get your private key using QC. But as far as I know, Satoshi or addresses that was associated to him doesn't have any transaction so still going hard to break it.

I think Bitcoin dev's know the threat already and could have already a mitigation plan to move on the next cryptographic algo to protect our Bitcoin address.

As for QC revealing Satoshi, I doubt that it has the capability.

[franky1]

If quantum computers get strong enough in next 20 years or so they could break security of current Bitcoin addresses. Anyone who wants to keep their Bitcoin safe in long run including Satoshi would need to move their Bitcoin to new addresses that are protected against these powerful computers.

If you only exposed your public key that they can try to break and get your private key using QC. But as far as I know, Satoshi or addresses that was associated to him doesn't have any transaction so still going hard to break it.

the address he used with Hal finney spend half a dozen times and is on a p2pk (as are most of his unspent block rewards)
he left funds there accidentally or on purpose, whereby it has become a good bug test, strength of bitcoin test/proof because over the last 15 years no one has managed to steal the funds

however blockstream want to create project fear to switch off not just functions for p2pk but also p2pkh spends

[Lucius]

Adam Back suggested that the emergence of quantum computing could force Satoshi Nakamoto to move their Bitcoin to protect it, revealing whether they are alive.
~snip~

AB would be better off keeping quiet than talking nonsense like this, because by the time quantum computers are capable of breaking through the protection, Satoshi will most likely be dead (although he may still be alive today). It's really a shame that Satoshi didn't burn all the BTC he mined because that would have prevented all the conspiracy theories we hear about all the time.


By the way, this is what I call a low value, zero effort, copy-pasted topic that ultimately is not (and will not) serve any meaningful discussion.

[pushups44]

Adam Back suggested that the emergence of quantum computing could force Satoshi Nakamoto to move their Bitcoin to protect it, revealing whether they are alive.
~snip~

AB would be better off keeping quiet than talking nonsense like this, because by the time quantum computers are capable of breaking through the protection, Satoshi will most likely be dead (although he may still be alive today). It's really a shame that Satoshi didn't burn all the BTC he mined because that would have prevented all the conspiracy theories we hear about all the time.


By the way, this is what I call a low value, zero effort, copy-pasted topic that ultimately is not (and will not) serve any meaningful discussion.

You literally responded to the opening post with a 530 character reply, asserting that no meaningful discussion can arise from it. So why reply? I for one would not write 530 character posts about a topic I feel is not worth my time. I think in this case Adam Back, whatever the criticisms of him, is an important or relevant figure in the space, and it's worth pondering what will happen to Satoshis's stash of BTC once QCs are able to crack legacy addresses.

[kryptqnick]

Well, to me, Adam Back is not a random guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. Perhaps if there is serious progress in quantum computing, everyone would need to more their assets. To be honest, though, I assumed that if we ever get there, there would be some kind of soft fork rather than individual decisions to switch.
Also, 'maybe 20 years' is very broad and can mean 'never'. People were supposed to go to Mars, grow human clones and many other things in similar timeframes. An answer like that means we're very far from this matter being a serious threat.

[pushups44]

Well, to me, Adam Back is not a random guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. Perhaps if there is serious progress in quantum computing, everyone would need to more their assets. To be honest, though, I assumed that if we ever get there, there would be some kind of soft fork rather than individual decisions to switch.
Also, 'maybe 20 years' is very broad and can mean 'never'. People were supposed to go to Mars, grow human clones and many other things in similar timeframes. An answer like that means we're very far from this matter being a serious threat.

I agree that Adam Back's perspective is probably more relevant or interesting than someone here who makes perhaps 50 cents a post declaring the whole discussion to be "low value." I think with the technological singularity near, and with how fast time can move - Bitcoin was only created about 17 years ago - we will likely have to face this issue relatively soon. 20 years is nothing really.

Considering that 1,000,000 BTC is likely more than some of the most powerful nation-states will ever have, it will be interesting to see what happens, since this can, perhaps, be viewed as a national or international security risk. That much BTC in the hands of the wrong person will pose a serious problem.

[Synchronice]

Adam Back suggested that the emergence of quantum computing could force Satoshi Nakamoto to move their Bitcoin to protect it, revealing whether they are alive.

[...]

During an interview after a Q&A session at the “Satoshi Spritz” event in Turin on April 18, Back suggested that quantum computing may force Nakamoto to move their Bitcoin. That’s because, according to Back, Bitcoin holders will be forced to move their assets to newer, quantum-resistant signature-based addresses.

Back said that current quantum computers do not pose a credible threat to Bitcoin’s cryptography but will likely threaten it in the future. Back estimated that quantum computers may evolve to that extent in “maybe 20 years.”

[...]

Consequently, he suggested that Bitcoin should be prepared to switch to quantum-resistant signatures but only do so when necessary. He suggested a Bitcoin taproot-based implementation allowing addresses to switch to quantum-resistant signatures when needed.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/quantum-computers-likely-to-reveal-if-satoshi-is-alive-adam-back

This is a very interesting subject. I'm not expert but I think that Satoshi will still not be in a huge danger because if I remember correctly, his public keys are not known.
By the way, it's clear that we will be ready before quantum computing gets developed enough to make a threat for Bitcoin, so, to my mind, this means that satoshi's coins will be treated differently. Also, exclusively his address can be blocked if he doesn't appear. Anyways, I think that satoshi will not return and the quantum attack will not happen in the next 10 years but the heat is here and it's only getting interesting.

[Lucius]

You literally responded to the opening post with a 530 character reply, asserting that no meaningful discussion can arise from it. So why reply? I for one would not write 530 character posts about a topic I feel is not worth my time.

What I wanted to say is that you did nothing more than copy text from a website without giving any of your own opinion. Such topics were usually deleted or moved, but apparently standards have changed.

I agree that Adam Back's perspective is probably more relevant or interesting than someone here who makes perhaps 50 cents a post declaring the whole discussion to be "low value."
~snip~

You're wrong, it's not 50 cents, it's $3. In addition, you think that AB does not charge for everything it says? I hear he got paid a nice amount for that documentary that was popular a few months ago, and in the end it didn't reveal anything new about Satoshi. I understand that some people deeply appreciate what people like AB have to say, even when they're not saying anything important.

[pushups44]

You literally responded to the opening post with a 530 character reply, asserting that no meaningful discussion can arise from it. So why reply? I for one would not write 530 character posts about a topic I feel is not worth my time.

What I wanted to say is that you did nothing more than copy text from a website without giving any of your own opinion. Such topics were usually deleted or moved, but apparently standards have changed.

I added some snippets to start a conversation, and I subsequently gave my views in the thread. Meanwhile, you keep on responding and kicking this thread up to the top of the list of threads, all the while claiming nothing useful can come of this. I have said, and others have said, that this topic is of interest, and that Adam Back's opinions are more interesting than yours.

Do you have any views on the national security risks of QCs? If so, post them. All you blathered is that Satoshi should have burned his coins, but you failed to provide any meaningful discussion to the threat of QCs to the network.

You're wrong, it's not 50 cents, it's $3. In addition, you think that AB does not charge for everything it says? I hear he got paid a nice amount for that documentary that was popular a few months ago, and in the end it didn't reveal anything new about Satoshi. I understand that some people deeply appreciate what people like AB have to say, even when they're not saying anything important.

You're still not adding anything substantial to this discussion. Do you have anything to add about the threat of QCs to the network? By the way, as you respond, you are clearly showing the topic is worthwhile in some sense - by kicking it up to the top. Yet you fail to contribute in any meaningful way. Others have contributed.

[thecoincrow]

I always wonder what kind of person he is? This alone question make me wanted to know who is Satoshi. He single handedly changed the finance world. But the way things are going on, I doubt if we ever get to know his real identity. I also have conspiracy theory that, bitcoin was created by some hidden organization to launder money easily around the world and they put a dummy name for people. Right Black Rock holds a big chunk on BTC.

[Zoomic]

I always wonder what kind of person he is? This alone question make me wanted to know who is Satoshi. He single handedly changed the finance world. But the way things are going on, I doubt if we ever get to know his real identity. I also have conspiracy theory that, bitcoin was created by some hidden organization to launder money easily around the world and they put a dummy name for people. Right Black Rock holds a big chunk on BTC.

Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't wish to be known. It has been a waste of effort over the years by some people trying hard to uncover who Satoshi truly is. Satoshi's creation is still serving its purpose, even without his identity being known. It's high time we all let the search for Satoshi rest. Threads like this will keep coming up over and over again yet we still won't figure out who Satoshi is.

[pushups44]

I always wonder what kind of person he is? This alone question make me wanted to know who is Satoshi. He single handedly changed the finance world. But the way things are going on, I doubt if we ever get to know his real identity. I also have conspiracy theory that, bitcoin was created by some hidden organization to launder money easily around the world and they put a dummy name for people. Right Black Rock holds a big chunk on BTC.

Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't wish to be known. It has been a waste of effort over the years by some people trying hard to uncover who Satoshi truly is. Satoshi's creation is still serving its purpose, even without his identity being known. It's high time we all let the search for Satoshi rest. Threads like this will keep coming up over and over again yet we still won't figure out who Satoshi is.

This is more than about uncovering who Satoshi is. My own thinking is - who gives a shit? At least in reference to this thread. The bigger issue is his stash and other coins that will be potentially unlocked due to quantum computing. Some have brushed the problem off as being 20 years or more into the future, but 20 years goes by very fast. Global leaders will have to figure out if they will let potential hackers access these coins - a legitimate national security risk - or if, for the first time, the Bitcoin network will have to practice some censorship (self-censoring?). Evidently, some people here are dismissive of the risks of letting any nation-state or bad actor access those coins.

[Ambatman]

This is a very interesting subject. I'm not expert but I think that Satoshi will still not be in a huge danger because if I remember correctly, his public keys are not known.

No they are known especially the spent P2PKH and both spent and unspent P2PK (Here the public key is included in the blockchain for unspent output).
Many addresses in the early days of Bitcoin made used of such addresses.
Though unspent outputs from P2PKH are relatively safe from Quantum computing
but same can't be said about the others i.e Spent P2PKH and spent and unspent outputs of P2PK.

The difference is the one with H is hashed. Pay to public key (P2PK).

[ABCbits]

If quantum computers get strong enough in next 20 years or so they could break security of current Bitcoin addresses. Anyone who wants to keep their Bitcoin safe in long run including Satoshi would need to move their Bitcoin to new addresses that are protected against these powerful computers.

If you only exposed your public key that they can try to break and get your private key using QC. But as far as I know, Satoshi or addresses that was associated to him doesn't have any transaction so still going hard to break it.

On general, what you said it's true. But address that presumed to be owned by Satoshi to mine 1 million BTC actually its P2PK (pay to public key) "address", where it's public key exposed immediately without spending any Bitcoin or signing message from that "address".