Now Loading



In many ways, a leader-free, amorphous ecosystem that drives Bitcoin forward incorporates Nassim Taleb’s concept of a “fighting weakness” system (although Taleb has recently become a prominent Bitcoin critic). It gives good reason to believe that Bitcoin will once again be very strong in the recent crisis in the cryptocurrency market.

As many strong believers will tell you, the strength of Bitcoin is largely a function of how difficult it is to change its process. As we have learned in block size battles, when a strong interest-seeking campaign failed to gain support to maximize Bitcoin data volume, it takes a great deal of consensus among users and miners to embrace significant code changes. That gives the system confidence and builds faith in the potential shortage that is promising.

However, it would be foolish to think that Bitcoin is completely safe from external threats. In fact, the one especially gaining less attention now looks bigger than ever: quantum technology. And in this case, the Bitcoin “hard to change” feature may be a distraction, not a factor.

A long time is coming

Quantum computing has been around for 40 years, delayed due to the complex engineering challenge that lies ahead of achieving, to a degree, the most promising kind of power. That slow process is why some people, including many in the cryptocurrency industry, believe it will never come.

But more recently, computer scientists have discovered the use of field calculators in conjunction with graphical processing units (GPUs). They foresaw a powerful use without waiting for the development of the quantum computer that comes out of everything.

That has raised concerns about opportunities created for the rapid processing of large databases to accelerate research in areas such as battery technology. It has also exacerbated concerns over encryption systems on which our digital economy on which they rely are at risk of being broken by attackers using quantum tools.

Scientists are therefore working together to release a set of open standards of "post-quantum cryptography" to "quantum-proof" in our computer systems. A recent article in Nature by a group of these scientists set out a reform strategy supported by the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and its external partners.

Biden's management memorandum last month outlined "the key steps needed to maintain national competitive advantage in quantum information technology (QIS), while minimizing the risk of quantum computing to national security in cyber, economic and national security." It outlined "some of the steps that organizations must take as the United States embarks on a multi-year system that moves vulnerable computer systems to cryptography."

One of the scientists running the program, Jack Hidary, CEO of Sandbox AQ, is now in the process of convincing crypto-development communities to begin a long process of switching to post-quantum standards before their blockchain agreements are nullified.

"This process of changing all blockchains can take four or five years, and that is part of understanding why we should start this process now," he said during an interview last week on the World Economic Forum's special program "Money Reconsidered" podcast.

The rigidity of Bitcoin sewage treatment will not protect it here. Although its key pairing system is built on Elliptic Curve cryptography (ECC), which extends beyond the RSA public key system used in most encryption systems, studies have shown that the EEC will not be able to withstand quantum processing, Hidary said.

That means a third party can use a very fast quantum calculation to quickly unlock the secret key you are monitoring to unlock and operate with the bitcoins specified in the public blockchain.

Take action now, later or never?

Will blockchain developers come in?

In order to develop a code on a company website, all that is needed is for the CEO or key technician to instruct their employees to do so. But you can not intentionally convert a widely distributed, nationally distributed, open source protocol whose value depends on the network of users unless a sufficient number of participants accept the code conversion.

We know, not only about block size wars but also how long it took for non-controversial developments like Taproot to be adopted, that finding a Bitcoin agreement can be very difficult and time consuming - in part because there is so much money. in danger.

One would think that if this advancement in computer technology causes this kind of threat to exist, change will happen immediately. People will keep what they are planted in, one might think.

But such improvements involve more than just a few lines of code. It means fixing the entire cryptographic foundation and requires the participation of all players in the Bitcoin economy. It will take a lot of meetings, as well as a big debate on Twitter and IRC for everyone to ride. Resistance to Bitcoin in exchange can be a barrier.

Inevitably, some will turn to scientists who make threats and promises. Companies like Hidary’s provide problem-solving services to blockchain developers. Is this correction urgent as he says? My head hurts thinking of wars, accusations, conspiracy theories.

Source: yahoo

How do you feel about this blog?


Leave a Reply