BTC OG And Computer Scientist Say Quantum Computing Threat To Bitcoin Is Exaggerated

This post was originally published on here

FUD
<!– wp:paragraph –>FUD is an abbreviation for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. <!– /wp:paragraph –>

” href=”https://blockzeit.com/glossary/fud/” target=”_blank” data-gt-translate-attributes=”[{“attribute”:”data-cmtooltip”, “format”:”html”}]” tabindex=”0″ role=”link”>FUD is gaining significant traction, claiming that quantum computing is close to breaking Bitcoin’s infrastructure.
Bitcoin OG Adam Back and computer scientist Roy Murphy think that such narratives are exaggerated.

Quantum computing is undoubtedly the next stage in the evolution of computers, and its progress is gaining significant ground. Adam Back, former collaborator of Satoshi

<!– wp:paragraph –>The smallest unit of bitcoin, equivalent to 100 millionth of a bitcoin. Named after the founder of bitcoin: Satoshi Nakamoto. <!– /wp:paragraph –>

” href=”https://blockzeit.com/glossary/satoshi/” target=”_blank” data-gt-translate-attributes=”[{“attribute”:”data-cmtooltip”, “format”:”html”}]” tabindex=”0″ role=”link”>Satoshi Nakamoto and current CEO of Blockstream, addressed the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) attacking the integrity of the premier cryptocurrency asset that he helped develop.

Meanwhile, a computer scientist believes the narratives about quantum computing’s ability to break the Bitcoin ecosystem in the next generation are exaggerated.

Michael Saylor’s Thoughts on Quantum Computing and Bitcoin

Recently, Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor tried to quell the quantum computing narrative, ensuring that the technology won’t break Bitcoin (BTC). On the contrary, it will harden it.

Saylor stated that the system will introduce a plethora of network upgrades, the migration of active coins, and that lost coins will remain frozen. As a result, Bitcoin’s security will go up, supply will decline, and its network will come out stronger.

However, without elaborating on the whys and hows of his argument, Saylor’s statement raised more debate on the matter.

Back came to the rescue of the crypto community, explaining that Bitcoin is insusceptible to quantum attacks for at least a decade. He clarified that it does not rely entirely on encryption for security, but rather on digital signatures (ECDSA) and one-way hash functions (SHA-256

<!– wp:paragraph –>SHA-256 is the cryptographic hash function used by Bitcoin. It converts input data into a fixed 256-bit hash, which is a one-way function, making it infeasible to reverse-engineer the original input from the hash output. <!– /wp:paragraph –>

” href=”https://blockzeit.com/glossary/sha-256/” target=”_blank” data-gt-translate-attributes=”[{“attribute”:”data-cmtooltip”, “format”:”html”}]” tabindex=”0″ role=”link”>SHA-256).

The cryptographer draws a crucial distinction regarding the capabilities of quantum computers. While their powerful models could, in theory, untangle the mathematical problems in encryption, Satoshi built Bitcoin with layers of protection.

Additionally, Back pointed out that Bitcoin’s optional P2P transport is merely intended to enhance privacy. It isn’t essential for security in its infrastructure because disabling it wouldn’t enable theft.

Back doesn’t entirely dismiss the threat of quantum computing relative to Bitcoin’s security, but he estimates that the technology is “ridiculously early” at this stage. Moreover, he cited massive R&D issues in “every vector of the required applied physics research to even find out that it’s possible at a useful scale.” Nonetheless, he encouraged everyone in the tech community to be “quantum ready.”

Doubling Bitcoin’s Hash for Quantum-Proofing

Dr. Roy Murphy, a computer scientist and Bitcoin script engineer, reinforces Saylor and Back’s defenses but with a slightly different analysis. According to him, “Bitcoin was, is, and always has been quantum resistant.” He highlighted that Satoshi built Bitcoin as a “time-ordered, economically incentivized, truculent, triple-entry accounting system with checks and balances.”

Murphy emphasized that quantum computing poses a theoretical risk to cryptographic systems that rely on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC). Shor’s algorithm could break Bitcoin’s digital signatures and hashing. But then again, it would require a lot of computational resources to break into Bitcoin’s multilayered protection. Furthermore, the current technology gaps make the theoretical scenario unlikely even in our grandchildren’s time.

On the other hand, the computer scientist claimed that even if quantum computing technology ever gets closer to breaking Bitcoin’s infrastructure, the Consensus

<!– wp:paragraph –>The consensus is a process used to achieve agreement on a single data value among distributed processes or systems. Common consensus mechanisms in blockchain. include Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS). <!– /wp:paragraph –>

” href=”https://blockzeit.com/glossary/consensus/” target=”_blank” data-gt-translate-attributes=”[{“attribute”:”data-cmtooltip”, “format”:”html”}]” tabindex=”0″ role=”link”>consensus could immediately address the threat by simply doubling its Hash Rate

<!– wp:paragraph –>Hash rate is the speed at which a compute is completing an operation in the Bitcoin code. A higher hash rate is better when mining as it increases your opportunity of finding the next block and receiving the reward. <!– /wp:paragraph –>

” href=”https://blockzeit.com/glossary/hash-rate/” target=”_blank” data-gt-translate-attributes=”[{“attribute”:”data-cmtooltip”, “format”:”html”}]” tabindex=”0″ role=”link”>hash rate. The vast computational resources and complexity required to break Bitcoin would make attacking it virtually impractical or infeasible.

What’s your Reaction?