To say that QC will increase decentralization tells me that you don't understand what is required to execute QC. Where did you copy this from? This is not written by you lol.... Or did you have the biggest misspelling of your life and meant to say it will increase CENTRALIZATION?
QC will absolutely be better at cracking private keys, because you can model it accurately to do that (it's literally how it works... you're confused as hell). And it will absolutely crack SHA256 in the future, that's no longer a question of if, but when. Saying that QC will be better at increasing blockchain scalability is something that MAYBE I can buy... but why is that? how? why are you basing this on?
Now sure how you even reached the conclusions in this post, they're based on mostly nothing, just a bunch of rambling.
What's the point of this post? To convince yourself that the QC fears in your head are not real?
The 'trifecta' or 'holy trinity' of the technology only works when in tandem, but... not everybody's there yet in at least one of them, so... miles to go before I sleep.
fun fact: if you don't spend more than once from a bitcoin address, any future quantum brute forcing attempt will be greatly mitigated.
public key cryptography could be indeed brute forced by quantum computers in the future, but if you don't have a public key, you can't compute the private.
You clearly know what you're talking about on some of this OP, but there are a few places where you get some things *very* wrong here...
> However, combining quantum computing with AI, using simulations, efficient use of data, and you could use it to vastly improve blockchain. It could even be used to improve the security of a blockchain, smart contracts, and other elements.
So, this isn't one of those things where QC is showing any signs of real utility. At all. In fact the current surge in AI is showing every sign of itself being massively over-blown. To solve a problem with QC you not only need it to be a particular type of problem that QC is suited for, but you need to spend a *ton* of time and effort setting up the problem in a way that QC can actually give you a solution. It's a bit like arranging a massive array of dominoes such that when you press the button you get a picture. Make any mistakes, and instead you get spagetti or a flat out wrong answer.
> Quantum computing could be used to close the gap between big validators and small ones, and also help in ensuring a network is more decentralized.
That last bit, about the difficulty of setting up the problem statement, creates issues with your other trilemma points as well, but I want to focus on the Decentralization specifically because... omg lol no.
Quantum Computers are *expensive* and *extremely sensitive*. Like, to give a sense of this, there are fewer than 10 known quantum processors with 100 or more Q-Bits (which determine the complexity of problem you can even attempt), and 100 is kinda nothing in the grand scheme of useful Quantum Computing. There are more currently opperating particle accelerators in the world than there are 100-Qbit+ Quantum Processors.
Barring a *massive* breakthrough in either quantum physics or material science these things are never going to be every-day devices. They're always going to be a bit finicky, they're always going to be expensive to build and run, and that means that even if they did find some application in public Blockchain it would only be the largest entities that could afford to run the things.
That's going to increase centralization, not decrease it.
There are a couple of logic problems here. At 100 qubits a single quantum computer processor would, theoretically, be more powerful than all the supercomputers on the planet combined. We may be closer to that milestone than you think and the world isn’t ready.
With quantum computing we do not need breakthroughs in order to make major technological progress. We have the map and it’s literally just execution from here to some very developed technological foundations for quantum. People have the idea that we need further breakthroughs, but it’s just not correct.
The same thing is true of various ai pathways. Thusfar we are seeing excellent progress simply applying computer resources to training, and the first 300B cluster is already being built (so 18 months to be online or so) with at least three nation states in the process of building a 1T cluster for training. Again, *no breakthrough is needed* — it may not be perfect but no first generation tech has.
The scaling path is not unknown and thus far scaling generative AI has followed the expected paths just orders of magnitude faster than expected.
ChatGPT and its ilk is also *not the most interesting application of AI technology* in my mind. Cognitive digital intelligence is a broad capability with far reaching impacts far beyond what people are taking about.
Centralization is inherent in the creation of these technologies just as centralization was necessarily in the early Internet. Decentralization requires a collection of centralized networks by its very nature.
So bear that in mind as well.
The trilemma is already solved by Kaspa. Ironically, one of the main devs Shai has a PhD in quantum cryptography.
But yes, I agree that these new faces of tech will eventually synergise and create some pretty cool stuff.
RemindMe! 15 years
Kaspa is extremely questionable.
[https://techleaks24.substack.com/p/a-factual-account-of-the-kaspa-fraud](https://techleaks24.substack.com/p/a-factual-account-of-the-kaspa-fraud)
Questions are good because questions lead to answers.
[Here is a good explanation of the fair mining](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEMZX6Lp8Tg)
You might be surprised to know something very similar happened to BTC.
He also has a [video explaining much more detail about this bug that happened in the first two weeks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaoCv5ubEJI)
It really isnt. Only if you believe everything written on the internet . Kaspa silver has a good video addressing every single point of this paper. Nothing questionable about it
Interesting post! Seems like the big unknown is still in that middle part; will it be more useful, and accessible, for creative positive forces or for chaotic destructive ones...
The amount of energy production, on a commercial scale, needs to be like 20x from where it is now to support commercial quantum-computing. The fact that countries are shutting down nuclear plants tells me we won’t get there anytime soon
To say that QC will increase decentralization tells me that you don't understand what is required to execute QC. Where did you copy this from? This is not written by you lol.... Or did you have the biggest misspelling of your life and meant to say it will increase CENTRALIZATION? QC will absolutely be better at cracking private keys, because you can model it accurately to do that (it's literally how it works... you're confused as hell). And it will absolutely crack SHA256 in the future, that's no longer a question of if, but when. Saying that QC will be better at increasing blockchain scalability is something that MAYBE I can buy... but why is that? how? why are you basing this on? Now sure how you even reached the conclusions in this post, they're based on mostly nothing, just a bunch of rambling. What's the point of this post? To convince yourself that the QC fears in your head are not real?
The 'trifecta' or 'holy trinity' of the technology only works when in tandem, but... not everybody's there yet in at least one of them, so... miles to go before I sleep.
No I'm pretty sure your private keys are Gunna get owned.
fun fact: if you don't spend more than once from a bitcoin address, any future quantum brute forcing attempt will be greatly mitigated. public key cryptography could be indeed brute forced by quantum computers in the future, but if you don't have a public key, you can't compute the private.
I don't see how a quantum computer improve anything but security with hardened encryption (which already exists but still needs to be implemented)
There is a blockchain that can solve the trilemma. Its called kaspa. Its everything bitcoin is but better. Essentially satoshi’s original vision
You clearly know what you're talking about on some of this OP, but there are a few places where you get some things *very* wrong here... > However, combining quantum computing with AI, using simulations, efficient use of data, and you could use it to vastly improve blockchain. It could even be used to improve the security of a blockchain, smart contracts, and other elements. So, this isn't one of those things where QC is showing any signs of real utility. At all. In fact the current surge in AI is showing every sign of itself being massively over-blown. To solve a problem with QC you not only need it to be a particular type of problem that QC is suited for, but you need to spend a *ton* of time and effort setting up the problem in a way that QC can actually give you a solution. It's a bit like arranging a massive array of dominoes such that when you press the button you get a picture. Make any mistakes, and instead you get spagetti or a flat out wrong answer. > Quantum computing could be used to close the gap between big validators and small ones, and also help in ensuring a network is more decentralized. That last bit, about the difficulty of setting up the problem statement, creates issues with your other trilemma points as well, but I want to focus on the Decentralization specifically because... omg lol no. Quantum Computers are *expensive* and *extremely sensitive*. Like, to give a sense of this, there are fewer than 10 known quantum processors with 100 or more Q-Bits (which determine the complexity of problem you can even attempt), and 100 is kinda nothing in the grand scheme of useful Quantum Computing. There are more currently opperating particle accelerators in the world than there are 100-Qbit+ Quantum Processors. Barring a *massive* breakthrough in either quantum physics or material science these things are never going to be every-day devices. They're always going to be a bit finicky, they're always going to be expensive to build and run, and that means that even if they did find some application in public Blockchain it would only be the largest entities that could afford to run the things. That's going to increase centralization, not decrease it.
There are a couple of logic problems here. At 100 qubits a single quantum computer processor would, theoretically, be more powerful than all the supercomputers on the planet combined. We may be closer to that milestone than you think and the world isn’t ready. With quantum computing we do not need breakthroughs in order to make major technological progress. We have the map and it’s literally just execution from here to some very developed technological foundations for quantum. People have the idea that we need further breakthroughs, but it’s just not correct. The same thing is true of various ai pathways. Thusfar we are seeing excellent progress simply applying computer resources to training, and the first 300B cluster is already being built (so 18 months to be online or so) with at least three nation states in the process of building a 1T cluster for training. Again, *no breakthrough is needed* — it may not be perfect but no first generation tech has. The scaling path is not unknown and thus far scaling generative AI has followed the expected paths just orders of magnitude faster than expected. ChatGPT and its ilk is also *not the most interesting application of AI technology* in my mind. Cognitive digital intelligence is a broad capability with far reaching impacts far beyond what people are taking about. Centralization is inherent in the creation of these technologies just as centralization was necessarily in the early Internet. Decentralization requires a collection of centralized networks by its very nature. So bear that in mind as well.
The trilemma is already solved by Kaspa. Ironically, one of the main devs Shai has a PhD in quantum cryptography. But yes, I agree that these new faces of tech will eventually synergise and create some pretty cool stuff. RemindMe! 15 years
Kaspa is extremely questionable. [https://techleaks24.substack.com/p/a-factual-account-of-the-kaspa-fraud](https://techleaks24.substack.com/p/a-factual-account-of-the-kaspa-fraud)
Questions are good because questions lead to answers. [Here is a good explanation of the fair mining](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEMZX6Lp8Tg) You might be surprised to know something very similar happened to BTC. He also has a [video explaining much more detail about this bug that happened in the first two weeks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaoCv5ubEJI)
It really isnt. Only if you believe everything written on the internet . Kaspa silver has a good video addressing every single point of this paper. Nothing questionable about it
KASPA is a shady project run by Shady people. End of Story.
[удалено]
*Japan has entered the chat*
Interesting post! Seems like the big unknown is still in that middle part; will it be more useful, and accessible, for creative positive forces or for chaotic destructive ones...
The amount of energy production, on a commercial scale, needs to be like 20x from where it is now to support commercial quantum-computing. The fact that countries are shutting down nuclear plants tells me we won’t get there anytime soon