Blockchains are not quantum secure. They can be unzipped by quantum computers that have a sufficiently high enough qbit processor;
We don't know if NSA has a sufficiently high Qbit processor Quantum computer but the commercial quantum computers are already 3/4 of the way there, so they probably DO.
Should NSA have a high enough quantum computer, they could unzip entire blockchains nearly instantly. If they don't have sufficent qbits, they could unzip wallets one by one, instantly. Their current linear computer facilities can unzip a wallet in a week to a month (or faster), but quantum is instant.
Quantum Computers don't exist, they're science fiction. Everything you see and hear about them today is nothing more than a scam to get people to invest in it. They haven't made any meaningful progress towards it in decades. Also, if you study the mechanics behind it, you'll see that it's likely not even possible. Our world would have to have a very different working to it than we we know in order for any of this to exist.
Even if QC did exist, all the algorithms they're proposing to run on these magical devices would be able to break the algorithms currently used for asymmetric cryptography, but not symmetric cryptography. Block chains are built upon symmetric cryptography, and therefore would not just be magically broken by a hypothetical QC.
Exactly. For 2021 the best achievement in over 20 years of quantum computing in breaking cryptograpthy is .... be ready .... integer factorization of the number 21 into primes 7 and 3.
That is all that was done in crypto breaking sphere for that billions invested into quantum computing.
I suppose that working Alcubierre drive will be built much sooner than quantum computer will be really able to break some outdated cryptography algorithm that is now considered obsolete.
Exactly. For 2021 the best achievement in over 20 years of quantum computing in breaking cryptograpthy is .... be ready .... integer factorization of the number 21 into primes 7 and 3.
They cannot even do that. It's all smoke and mirrors with QC.
Every so called quantum "computer" they've created isn't capable of actually computing anything. What they have done is essentially build in a table of primes up to 21, and can then verify according to the pre-built table that 21 does indeed consist of 7 and 3.
All they're doing is cheating on a test, and they cannot even get that to anywhere meaningful. They would need a Manhattan project kind of effort to even get it capable of actually being able to compute the factor of a small number, and even with that kind of effort, I'm not convinced it's possible to pull off.
I didn't dig deeper on that meaningless "result". So they failed even with a proof-of-concept. :)
As for large systems, AFAIK, there comes up another problem with decoherence along with the scale up. More qubits, more decoherence and nobody knows how to avoid it.
Really, it is fascinating to observe how all that total crap with quantum computing, artificial intelligence, etc. not only used for enormous money laundering, but also successfully used in fearmongering. Seems that even here only few really do their own research to find out the real state of affairs with that marketing bullshit.
Day to day it's harder and harder to keep the faith in humanity.
As you said, it's so important to research things than to take "common knowledge" about recent developments as accurate.
If you really want to lose faith, study all the crazy experiments that have been conducted in quantum mechanics, and you'll see no one can answer some basic questions about the entire concept. No one understands what's going on, and the so called "conclusions" of various experiments are just wild far-fetched guesses that sound nice on paper. Everyone is also afraid to ask the big questions behind the meaning of all the tests that have been conducted.
How is entanglement even possible? What does it mean about our reality if particles appear to share properties?
Why does every test conducted with "gates" result in confirmation? Is it possible to even achieve a negative result?
When multiple outcomes are possible, why are the ratios so perfect? How does this relate to the above question?
Are our experiments somehow flawed?
Are the particles aware they're being tested and necessarily react differently then they would if no one was looking?
Quantum Computers don't exist, they're science fiction. Everything you see and hear about them today is nothing more than a scam to get people to invest in it. They haven't made any meaningful progress towards it in decades. Also, if you study the mechanics behind it, you'll see that it's likely not even possible. Our world would have to have a very different working to it than we we know in order for any of this to exist.
Even if QC did exist, all the algorithms they're proposing to run on these magical devices would be able to break the algorithms currently used for asymmetric cryptography, but not symmetric cryptography. Block chains are built upon symmetric cryptography, and therefore would not just be magically broken by a hypothetical QC.
Exactly. For 2021 the best achievement in over 20 years of quantum computing in breaking cryptograpthy is .... be ready .... integer factorization of the number 21 into primes 7 and 3.
That is all that was done in crypto breaking sphere for that billions invested into quantum computing.
I suppose that working Alcubierre drive will be built much sooner than quantum computer will be really able to break some outdated cryptography algorithm that is now considered obsolete.
They cannot even do that. It's all smoke and mirrors with QC.
Every so called quantum "computer" they've created isn't capable of actually computing anything. What they have done is essentially build in a table of primes up to 21, and can then verify according to the pre-built table that 21 does indeed consist of 7 and 3.
All they're doing is cheating on a test, and they cannot even get that to anywhere meaningful. They would need a Manhattan project kind of effort to even get it capable of actually being able to compute the factor of a small number, and even with that kind of effort, I'm not convinced it's possible to pull off.
I didn't dig deeper on that meaningless "result". So they failed even with a proof-of-concept. :)
As for large systems, AFAIK, there comes up another problem with decoherence along with the scale up. More qubits, more decoherence and nobody knows how to avoid it.
Really, it is fascinating to observe how all that total crap with quantum computing, artificial intelligence, etc. not only used for enormous money laundering, but also successfully used in fearmongering. Seems that even here only few really do their own research to find out the real state of affairs with that marketing bullshit.
Day to day it's harder and harder to keep the faith in humanity.
You'll probably enjoy these articles:
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/quantum-computing-as-a-field-is-obvious-bullshit/
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-case-against-quantum-computing
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-us-national-academies-reports-on-the-prospects-for-quantum-computing
https://www.quantamagazine.org/gil-kalais-argument-against-quantum-computers-20180207/
As you said, it's so important to research things than to take "common knowledge" about recent developments as accurate.
If you really want to lose faith, study all the crazy experiments that have been conducted in quantum mechanics, and you'll see no one can answer some basic questions about the entire concept. No one understands what's going on, and the so called "conclusions" of various experiments are just wild far-fetched guesses that sound nice on paper. Everyone is also afraid to ask the big questions behind the meaning of all the tests that have been conducted.
How is entanglement even possible? What does it mean about our reality if particles appear to share properties?
Why does every test conducted with "gates" result in confirmation? Is it possible to even achieve a negative result?
When multiple outcomes are possible, why are the ratios so perfect? How does this relate to the above question?
Are our experiments somehow flawed?
Are the particles aware they're being tested and necessarily react differently then they would if no one was looking?