What's "FUD bullshit"? I'm talking about a perceived threat, which I admit, may not or may not be true. But as long as it's there, and if there are not any assurances made that the threat isn't eliminated, then truly the confidence in that which is threatened will go down.

Or do you actually disagree that Bitcoin should be Quantum Resistant? You don't believe that Quantum Computers that could break SHA-256 are coming?

This is why I advised you to start looking for other discussions about this if you truly care about the knowledge regarding this subject matter. This was addressed too by many people in different threats. Mining is not vulnerable, addresses that are not reused are not vulnerable. Even under the worst case scenario only old coins on P2PK addresses and coins on addresses that are being reused are vulnerable. Furthermore, as talked about on previous pages -- the risk that is created by doing any kind of confiscation or freezing even once for the pretense of protecting Bitcoin against quantum computers is much higher than 1M coins being dumped on the market. It will set a precedence that under certain scenarios freezing is justifiable, which would turn BTC into Ethereum lite. 

Yes this. The risk to SHA256 is non-existent using the current knowledge about how quantum computers can operate.

You know since people often bring up who luke-jr is in the discussions that relate to him therefore we have to be fair here. Let's take a look at what it says about this person.

Unbiased, objective and reputable researcher. How about you ask a Zionist offspring of Jensen Huang whether real AI is just around the corner? Better sell some of your family members in exchange for some AI hardware.


No.

No.

Overblown by several proportions, similar to the AI bullshit just slightly less worse.

---

---

There, I answered your panicking and FUD once more. No Zionist Andersen was needed.

I visited the link, but why it ask email address, first name and last name? I probably just being skeptical, but i find it's suspicious when the link should be just about video. But i found this statement from one of his blog post.


Unless i misunderstood his statement, it seems he's also not sure when QC is mature enough to break signature cryptography that still used today.

What are you saying? That's it's a scam link? Why would he do that?


I watched the stream, and he wasn't actually making a Doom's Day projection. He was merely saying that based on the milestones from all of their research being done in Google, he's merely becoming more optimistic that because of the current technological advancements, a working Quantum Computer could be built sooner than expected.

I didn't understand some of the more technical parts of the stream, although he tried to make everything ELI-5.

How close are we, actually, to be in a world like that? Would you say that it will be within a decade? Because all the "Quantum Threat" narrative - and it's still sort of a narrative as of today, could discourage potential investors from investing into Bitcoin.

We can be absolutely sure that shitcoins like ZCash will take advantage of the situation and make marketing ploys that they have the "best path to Quantum Resistance".

Can you provide some links to read more on that? It sounds interesting, but as a layperson I'm struggling to find material on these topics on a simple web search.

I guess however that are highly speculative scenarios, with a likelihood of under 5% but non-zero or so, as this has never been mentioned in any article I read about quantum threats on cryptography.

And how could an "attestation layer" look like?

Look at it through a Game Theory lens.

The literature lags the frontier by a decade. What I’m talking about isn't "proven theory", it's noticing the shape of the trajectory.
These are not conclusions, they’re directions.

You don’t need AI hype or quantum mythology to see the pattern.

The Incentives are Clear
Quantum + topology correction is a true zero-sum game. Winner takes all, literally.

Quantum gets built for profit. The first breakthroughs won't be published.

Whoever wins prioritizes topology, because that’s where the leverage is.

We already see ML correcting blind spots in areas we thought were provably optimal: compilers, chip layouts, simulation shortcuts, optimization landscapes.
So it’s reasonable to assume similar pressure will apply to quantum topology next.

This is why the search space stops being flat and the "only quadratic" safety story for SHA-256 collapses.

I'm not saying SHA-256 is doomed tomorrow.
I’m saying the assumption chain behind quadratic speedups is weaker than people think.
It’s a ~5% likelihood today only because the field hasn’t looked there yet.

Whether you call it AI, ML, heuristics, or algorithms, it dont matter. The point is, machines now find optimizations humans miss. That changes timelines.

A hash-only security model assumes the hash function stays flat. An attestation layer commits state.

Dismissing this as FUD assumes attackers are constrained by your mental model of what’s possible.

And whether it's called optimization, pattern, shortcut or other term, i have doubt it would work well on properly created/designed cryptography due to the avalanche effect[1].

[1] https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/114737