11

Here is a list of the most relevant facts and assumptions regarding my concern:

  1. Monero is a POW (proof-of-work) cryptocurrency.
  2. A risk of POW cryptos is the 51% attack, which is possible when a bad actor possesses the majority of the network's hashing power.
  3. Quantum computers will likely be many orders of magnitude faster than silicon-based (which I'll call "legacy") computers.
  4. A bad actor with a quantum computer would potentially pose a threat to a POW network otherwise solely maintained by legacy computers.
  5. The advent of the quantum computing era will contain a small timeframe - right at its inception - where very, very few people will have access to a quantum computer.
  6. One or more of those very, very early possessors of a quantum computer could be bad actors.

Based on the above facts and circumstances, I believe there to be a risk related to the transition from legacy to quantum computing that will eventually need to be addressed, if it hasn't been already. Does the monero community have a formal plan for blockchain integrity and wallet safety related to this risk? If so, what is it?

FYI, there is another SE question re: quantum computing here.

Community
  • 1
scoobybejesus
  • 5,495
  • 18
  • 42
  • 5
    I think everyone who shares your mindset is working on a solution. I'm going to leave this > https://pqcrypto.org < here and suggest we push monero to use post quantum crypto. – JohnHanks Aug 01 '16 at 01:41
  • 7
    Could this be broken down into several more concise questions? – John Adamson Aug 08 '16 at 10:26
  • It is preferred if you can post separate questions instead of combining your questions into one. That way, it helps the people answering your question and also others hunting for at least one of your questions. Thanks! – 254123179 Aug 11 '16 at 09:49
  • I appreciate the feedback. There is really only one question that I'm asking: what's the plan for QC? The other examples are just framing the issue. Perhaps those other example questions can be deleted, though I don't really like leaving open the possibility that an answer will just spur more questions. Anyway, I'm considering the best way to edit my question so that the focus is placed in the right spot. – scoobybejesus Aug 11 '16 at 17:02
  • 2
    @scoobybejesus this meta discussion may interest you: http://meta.monero.stackexchange.com/questions/51/is-this-type-question-too-broad – studycrypto Aug 11 '16 at 18:57
  • @scoobybejesus there is nothing wrong with an answer spurring more questions. That is preferable to asking many questions at once. Your edit helped. – studycrypto Aug 12 '16 at 10:37
  • The question still seems pretty broad and the last question "If not, is there some thought/feeling on when this discussion will take place and when appropriate decisions would be made?" seems somewhat speculative. – tryinghard Aug 14 '16 at 20:01
  • Unless two people have quantum computers, right? They could also make a lot of money... – CQM Aug 18 '16 at 17:17

1 Answers1

5

The obvious answer: when we have proof that "QC-resistant" algorithms are actually resistant, we can adopt a new algorithm and roll it out in the next scheduled hard fork. At present, everything written about quantum computing and weaknesses of current cryptographic algorithms is purely speculative. The world's most powerful quantum computer hasn't actually proven to be usable for cracking any crypto algorithms yet. http://www.wired.com/2015/09/googles-quantum-computer-just-got-a-big-upgrade-1000-qubits/

hyc
  • 4,233
  • 18
  • 21