The "vulnerability" does not exist yet. Current algorithms and key length is quantum secure for at least another 10 years.
The common way to improve security within encryption is to simply double the key length. This typically provides sufficient security for another decades.
Better security also means that the software will be slower, more data to store and transmit, but most importantly more data to process. For already existing machines we're talking exponential growth in time complexity.
Now this will have a much lower impact on decentralized networks such as cryptocurrency, but still noticeable, so you don't implement that until it's needed. That's the policy of Bitcoin however, many other coins already use quantum secure algorithms, so if you're smart you just avoid Bitcoin and go for the coins that are secure.
Whatever you do, avoid centralized digital systems. Your bank for instance would have to exponentially grow the amount of servers to catch up with the new more secure algorithms, which is gonna be a costly process. Fakebook, twatter etc would have to build new data centers.
Those "failsafes" may be sufficient to stop automated attacks, but it's worth nothing because it can all be overridden by human error. Humans are always the weakest spot in any secure system, hence also the most commonly targeted.
Your mistake is to assume that the average Joe is smarter than you are. Or let's say more capable of protecting everything you own, which obviously isn't the case.
Two reasons:
Better security also means that the software will be slower, more data to store and transmit, but most importantly more data to process. For already existing machines we're talking exponential growth in time complexity.
Now this will have a much lower impact on decentralized networks such as cryptocurrency, but still noticeable, so you don't implement that until it's needed. That's the policy of Bitcoin however, many other coins already use quantum secure algorithms, so if you're smart you just avoid Bitcoin and go for the coins that are secure.
Whatever you do, avoid centralized digital systems. Your bank for instance would have to exponentially grow the amount of servers to catch up with the new more secure algorithms, which is gonna be a costly process. Fakebook, twatter etc would have to build new data centers.
Banks have failsafes for fraud. Bank ledger also aren't public. I'm not necessarily "pro bankster" or "anti crypto" but I'm tracking the risks.
Those "failsafes" may be sufficient to stop automated attacks, but it's worth nothing because it can all be overridden by human error. Humans are always the weakest spot in any secure system, hence also the most commonly targeted.
Your mistake is to assume that the average Joe is smarter than you are. Or let's say more capable of protecting everything you own, which obviously isn't the case.