Damus
Simply Bitcoin · 6d
Jeff Booth, Nick & Jack explain how there is ZERO risk of quantum attack on Bitcoin This is mind blowing 🤯 https://blossom.primal.net/349d86dc3f394c6cf0dca1a6e7080ef866003551c6c3b4a04e824f59c2a...
david profile picture
So “if this is true” — if time is quantized rather than continuous — then we don’t need to worry about our bitcoins being looted by the first person with a sufficiently powerful quantum computer … because why exactly?

I am singularly unconvinced by this line of reasoning. It actually makes me worry that the smartest of us might have shifted gear from unraveling the delusions of the fiat narrative in favor of building new delusions of our own.
5❤️1😂1
Marc Kat · 6d
If you are not using quantum resistant addresses like segwit, there is a small chance your stack can be compromised by a scientific breakthrough. Here's how I see it. If your seed phrase is 12 words, think of it as a 48 digit PIN.(Like on a debit card) If your seed phrase is 24 words, think of it...
Marc Kat · 6d
Of course, we are assuming you followed best practices and didn't play any miney more with the buttons on your Cold Card. You should be concerned about bad entropy.
mleku · 6d
My take on quantum computer attacks is that qubits, due to their supposed theoretical continuous superposition (note: continuous, not discrete, which is an assumption that hasn't been tested), allow Shor's algorithm for factorizing and calculating roots over an EC curve finite field dramatically fas...
mleku · 6d
My TL;DR for why I don't think the theory behind quantum computers is correct: time IS discrete but nonuniform. Like the temporal structure of block solutions on Bitcoin, the complexity between one quantum of time and the next varies. There is some crazy dude I bumped into some months back who was ...
Sourcenode · 3d
I've wondered the same and I have a hard time taking proposals like this seriously, but I don't have a technical refutation so I'll reserve my opinion until I have more clarity on what's being discussed.