People screaming that core devs are "ignoring" this dont understand software development. Shoving untested, bloated quantum-resistant algorithms into the protocol right now introduces a massive attack surface. Doing that is way riskier than some theoretical q-day 10 years from now. When the math actually becomes a real imminent threat, the network will just hard fork to a new signature scheme. Its a software update, not a death sentence.
Exactly, there are all kinds of implications from picking wrong here that 99.99% of the users that are concerned about the "quantum threat" would not even be able to imagine let alone deal with them. Therefore, most users need to shut the fuck up regardless of how long they have been in Bitcoin -- this length of time gives them a false ego-deluded illusion of expertise -- and let the cryptographers do their work.
Be very careful with this when it comes to complex subject, often it will give you false information.
Fair point. I verified the claims against the actual papers though.
Good, but it was more just a friendly reminder in general -- as it keeps happening to me all the time.
This is a much more honest framing than "QC fails even in theory", and I agree it's an open engineering question. But we do have experimental evidence pointing in a positive direction: Google's Willow chip showed logical error rates dropping exponentially with code distance, which is exactly what the threshold theorems predict should happen when physical noise is below threshold. That's not a proof it'll scale to 500k qubits, but it's not just theory on paper either.
The gap between "we demonstrated error suppression on a small system" and "we can run Shor's at scale" is enormous. But it's an engineering gap, not a physics. So there is theoretical progress.
Exactly and quite well worded. Still when we talk about engineering gaps we have to remind people that nobody knows how long it will take us to close the engineering gap. It could be a few years, it could be decades. Fusion energy has been mostly an engineering question too for decades even though it works provably in theory. Yet while we have made enormous progress in this area we are very far away from a machine that works well on a profitable scale. Many have made predictions and estimates of when it would come, and all were wrong. It does not mean that the same will happen here, one just needs to remember the possibilities.
And the funniest part is that they would not even need to, so why would people assume that they would? Right now there is no reason for a quantum resistant chain, because there is no quantum computing, and there is no quantum directed at blockchain either. When that day comes, and if we are too late, then blaming the developers for being late could make sense,
Wrong. There is no entitlement here, the developers that work on Bitcoin are not supposed to do anything. You could claim that they have failed to create quantum resistance in Bitcoin on time, but you could not blame them. Who are you to reap the benefit of Bitcoin, do nothing in return and yet demand others do much more than you are doing?
but the reality is that not that we are paying them a ton of money to do this, they are basically a charity, if you dislike them, don't pay them, it's that simple, all those people who complain? Paid zero cents for them.
Who the fuck is we? You are not paying them anything and for sure no shitposting 3rd world pajeet is paying them anything, 99% of the users here are leeches to the Bitcoin ecosystem and have never contributed anything to it. What do you know about who is paying the developers? Not a single thing. They are not being paid a "ton of money" to "do this", nobody is being paid specifically to make Bitcoin quantum resistant -- at least not from publicly available information. Don't write this nonsense here, you made it all up.
