Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

The Google and Caltech quantum papers demonstrated 2 breakthroughs: that Bitcoin cryptography is much easier to break than previously thought, and that far fewer logical qubits may be necessary for physical qubits. Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden explains: "These two papers are not necessarily about a quantum computer that's...

tbpn's profile picture

TBPN

912,993 subscribers

16,456 views • 7 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsEducationScience & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

"Because blockchains like Bitcoin fundamentally rely on cryptography, it's existential for them." Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden on the Google and Caltech quantum papers: "Everything's on the line here. We have to solve it for chains like Bitcoin to have a future."
1:45

"Because blockchains like Bitcoin fundamentally rely on cryptography, it's existential for them." Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden on the Google and Caltech quantum papers: "Everything's on the line here. We have to solve it for chains like Bitcoin to have a future."

TBPN

10,193 views • 7 months ago

6,100-Qubit Processor Shatters Quantum Computing Record | David Nield, ScienceAlert Another major quantum computing record has been broken, and by a considerable margin: physicists have now built an array containing 6,100 qubits, the largest of its type and way above the thousand or so qubits previous systems contained. It's the work of scientists from the California Institute of Technology, who used cesium atoms as their qubits, trapping them in place with a complex system of lasers that acted as tweezers to keep the atoms as stable as possible. Qubits differ from the classical bits of traditional computers by exploiting what's known as a superposition: not just binary states of 1 or 0, but a spread of probabilities that allows for algorithms that can solve problems considered out of reach of conventional computing methods. Related: Quantum Advantage: A Physicist Explains The Future of Computers A lot of qubits will be needed to make quantum algorithms practical, however. One reason for these large arrays is error correction, which helps overcome the inherent fragility of the qubit by providing a surplus to double-check the machine's operation. "This is an exciting moment for neutral-atom quantum computing," says physicist Manuel Endres. "We can now see a pathway to large error-corrected quantum computers. The building blocks are in place." There was no single breakthrough that enabled this jump in qubit numbers, but rather a series of engineering advancements in many key areas – from the laser tweezers to the ultra-high (very low pressure) vacuum chamber. Stability has also been a problem for quantum computing systems. The innovations in this latest array kept qubits in a superposition state for almost 13 seconds – almost ten times longer than previous configurations had managed. What's more, individual qubits could be manipulated with 99.98 percent accuracy, establishing a significant benchmark in the programmability of quantum technology. "Large scale, with more atoms, is often thought to come at the expense of accuracy, but our results show that we can do both," says physicist Gyohei Nomura. "Qubits aren't useful without quality. Now we have quantity and quality." To make quantum computers a practical alternative to modern supercomputers, more qubits and even greater levels of stability will be required. Experts are tackling the problem from several different angles, which is why records for some types of quantum computer don't necessarily apply to others. Next, the researchers need to work on exploiting entanglement, which will enable the system to make the leap from storing information to actually processing it. Not too far in the future, we could be using these computers to discover new materials, matter, and fundamental laws of physics. "It's exciting that we are creating machines to help us learn about the Universe in ways that only quantum mechanics can teach us," says physicist Hannah Manetsch. Read more:
1:54

6,100-Qubit Processor Shatters Quantum Computing Record | David Nield, ScienceAlert Another major quantum computing record has been broken, and by a considerable margin: physicists have now built an array containing 6,100 qubits, the largest of its type and way above the thousand or so qubits previous systems contained. It's the work of scientists from the California Institute of Technology, who used cesium atoms as their qubits, trapping them in place with a complex system of lasers that acted as tweezers to keep the atoms as stable as possible. Qubits differ from the classical bits of traditional computers by exploiting what's known as a superposition: not just binary states of 1 or 0, but a spread of probabilities that allows for algorithms that can solve problems considered out of reach of conventional computing methods. Related: Quantum Advantage: A Physicist Explains The Future of Computers A lot of qubits will be needed to make quantum algorithms practical, however. One reason for these large arrays is error correction, which helps overcome the inherent fragility of the qubit by providing a surplus to double-check the machine's operation. "This is an exciting moment for neutral-atom quantum computing," says physicist Manuel Endres. "We can now see a pathway to large error-corrected quantum computers. The building blocks are in place." There was no single breakthrough that enabled this jump in qubit numbers, but rather a series of engineering advancements in many key areas – from the laser tweezers to the ultra-high (very low pressure) vacuum chamber. Stability has also been a problem for quantum computing systems. The innovations in this latest array kept qubits in a superposition state for almost 13 seconds – almost ten times longer than previous configurations had managed. What's more, individual qubits could be manipulated with 99.98 percent accuracy, establishing a significant benchmark in the programmability of quantum technology. "Large scale, with more atoms, is often thought to come at the expense of accuracy, but our results show that we can do both," says physicist Gyohei Nomura. "Qubits aren't useful without quality. Now we have quantity and quality." To make quantum computers a practical alternative to modern supercomputers, more qubits and even greater levels of stability will be required. Experts are tackling the problem from several different angles, which is why records for some types of quantum computer don't necessarily apply to others. Next, the researchers need to work on exploiting entanglement, which will enable the system to make the leap from storing information to actually processing it. Not too far in the future, we could be using these computers to discover new materials, matter, and fundamental laws of physics. "It's exciting that we are creating machines to help us learn about the Universe in ways that only quantum mechanics can teach us," says physicist Hannah Manetsch. Read more:

Owen Gregorian

45,324 views • 1 year ago

SITUATION EXPLAINED: How close are we to a quantum computer that can break encryption? We asked Prineha Narang, Professor at UCLA, former US Science Envoy for Quantum, and partner at DCVC "Depending on who you talk to, there's a credible threat to ECC256 or RSA, two to four years is not that far out, especially if you're talking about the ways that we encrypt effectively everything ranging from our currency and our communication and everything else." "The resource estimates have moved. From oh, you might need 10 million qubits, to maybe 100,000. And now depending on who you ask, 25 to 50,000 neutral atom qubits ought to be enough." "Google published a paper that got a lot of attention around what would be a reasonable set of qubits to pose a credible threat to RSA. And then that research was improved by open source researchers who moved the benchmarks even further." "I think we're gonna see more technological surprise there. And what's truly a little bit scary here is that there might be stuff that's not being published that we don't know about quite as broadly."
3:41

SITUATION EXPLAINED: How close are we to a quantum computer that can break encryption? We asked Prineha Narang, Professor at UCLA, former US Science Envoy for Quantum, and partner at DCVC "Depending on who you talk to, there's a credible threat to ECC256 or RSA, two to four years is not that far out, especially if you're talking about the ways that we encrypt effectively everything ranging from our currency and our communication and everything else." "The resource estimates have moved. From oh, you might need 10 million qubits, to maybe 100,000. And now depending on who you ask, 25 to 50,000 neutral atom qubits ought to be enough." "Google published a paper that got a lot of attention around what would be a reasonable set of qubits to pose a credible threat to RSA. And then that research was improved by open source researchers who moved the benchmarks even further." "I think we're gonna see more technological surprise there. And what's truly a little bit scary here is that there might be stuff that's not being published that we don't know about quite as broadly."

MTS

10,781 views • 4 months ago

FROM 50% TO 99.7%. INFLEQTION'S QUANTUM CHIPS JUST CROSSED THE THRESHOLD THAT KEPT THEM OFF THE ROADMAP FOR YEARS -Matt, the CEO of Infleqtion, says neutral atom qubits had gate fidelities around 50% back in 2018, too low to be taken seriously. Today they're at 99.73% -Guides to 30 logical qubits by end of this year, then 100 by 2028, the level he says is needed for useful quantum computing -Notes they don't need to max out their qubit array to get there: 12 logical qubits came from a fraction of their 1,600-qubit system
4:20

FROM 50% TO 99.7%. INFLEQTION'S QUANTUM CHIPS JUST CROSSED THE THRESHOLD THAT KEPT THEM OFF THE ROADMAP FOR YEARS -Matt, the CEO of Infleqtion, says neutral atom qubits had gate fidelities around 50% back in 2018, too low to be taken seriously. Today they're at 99.73% -Guides to 30 logical qubits by end of this year, then 100 by 2028, the level he says is needed for useful quantum computing -Notes they don't need to max out their qubit array to get there: 12 logical qubits came from a fraction of their 1,600-qubit system

WOLF

127,524 views • 1 month ago

Google just told crypto to get quantum-ready by 2029. What changed: a 20x improvement to Shor’s algorithm. That takes the threat from tens of millions of qubits to ~500,000, with a possible attack window of about nine minutes. The quantum clock is ticking.
4:13

Google just told crypto to get quantum-ready by 2029. What changed: a 20x improvement to Shor’s algorithm. That takes the threat from tens of millions of qubits to ~500,000, with a possible attack window of about nine minutes. The quantum clock is ticking.

Bankless

14,663 views • 7 months ago

Today, we launched Helios, a technological marvel redefining the possible. Helios is the most accurate quantum computer in the world, with 98 of the highest fidelity physical qubits ever released, and 48 error-corrected logical qubits. Learn more:
0:28

Today, we launched Helios, a technological marvel redefining the possible. Helios is the most accurate quantum computer in the world, with 98 of the highest fidelity physical qubits ever released, and 48 error-corrected logical qubits. Learn more:

Quantinuum

90,855 views • 1 year ago

Infleqtion just demonstrated 30 logical qubits working together to help manage that noise on our Sqale quantum computer. Why does that matter? More reliable quantum computers can run longer, more complex computations. Those are the kinds of computations needed to help tackle real-world challenges, from discovering new medicines and better materials, to building more resilient energy systems and strengthening national security. Next target: 100 logical qubits by 2028.
1:13

Infleqtion just demonstrated 30 logical qubits working together to help manage that noise on our Sqale quantum computer. Why does that matter? More reliable quantum computers can run longer, more complex computations. Those are the kinds of computations needed to help tackle real-world challenges, from discovering new medicines and better materials, to building more resilient energy systems and strengthening national security. Next target: 100 logical qubits by 2028.

Infleqtion

167,893 views • 1 month ago

Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden says China may be 6-12 months behind the US in quantum computing at most: "[China has] made quantum computing a priority. What that means in China is — there used to be a lab at Tencent, Baidu, and a few other places. And at some point, a CCP official came in and said, 'Guess what, you guys all work for us now, you're all working together, and you're not allowed to talk about it anymore." "There's a legitimate question about how far back they are. The best estimates that we have — we have a quantum physicist who's an advisor to Project Eleven that tracks resource estimates across the world, and their view is that China may be 6-12 months behind at most." "Can we expect the CCP, which is maybe more willing to crush dissent in places like Hong Kong, to care as much about the philosophical principles of Bitcoin and decentralization if it serves their purposes to do otherwise? I don't think we can." "It's better to be safe than sorry. We need to prepare today to prevent the crisis tomorrow."
1:55

Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden says China may be 6-12 months behind the US in quantum computing at most: "[China has] made quantum computing a priority. What that means in China is — there used to be a lab at Tencent, Baidu, and a few other places. And at some point, a CCP official came in and said, 'Guess what, you guys all work for us now, you're all working together, and you're not allowed to talk about it anymore." "There's a legitimate question about how far back they are. The best estimates that we have — we have a quantum physicist who's an advisor to Project Eleven that tracks resource estimates across the world, and their view is that China may be 6-12 months behind at most." "Can we expect the CCP, which is maybe more willing to crush dissent in places like Hong Kong, to care as much about the philosophical principles of Bitcoin and decentralization if it serves their purposes to do otherwise? I don't think we can." "It's better to be safe than sorry. We need to prepare today to prevent the crisis tomorrow."

TBPN

17,623 views • 7 months ago

David Friedberg warns crypto wallets with public keys may be at risk because the absence of major cryptography proofs in OpenAI's math drop suggests big breakthroughs were made but held back "On cryptography, a number of people noted that there were no major proofs shared in the space of cryptography, which indicates probably the fact that there were some pretty major breakthroughs in cryptography." "And the reason is, it is unlikely the case that you made absolutely no progress in any of the cryptography related proofs, given all of the other progress that we saw." "And if they made minor progress, then they would have published on it, because there wouldn't have been implications for systems of cryptography." "So the absence of evidence suggests that maybe there were some pretty major breakthroughs made in cryptography." "And then there were a number of people that posted that cryptographic wallets with public keys are now very seriously at risk. And so there's a bit of a panic underway in the crypto community about what do we do now?" "And if this ends up having a set of mathematical solves for number factorization that could lead to breaking public key cryptography before quantum computers come around, which is what everyone assumed would be the thing that would break public key cryptography, then we have a real problem."
1:08

David Friedberg warns crypto wallets with public keys may be at risk because the absence of major cryptography proofs in OpenAI's math drop suggests big breakthroughs were made but held back "On cryptography, a number of people noted that there were no major proofs shared in the space of cryptography, which indicates probably the fact that there were some pretty major breakthroughs in cryptography." "And the reason is, it is unlikely the case that you made absolutely no progress in any of the cryptography related proofs, given all of the other progress that we saw." "And if they made minor progress, then they would have published on it, because there wouldn't have been implications for systems of cryptography." "So the absence of evidence suggests that maybe there were some pretty major breakthroughs made in cryptography." "And then there were a number of people that posted that cryptographic wallets with public keys are now very seriously at risk. And so there's a bit of a panic underway in the crypto community about what do we do now?" "And if this ends up having a set of mathematical solves for number factorization that could lead to breaking public key cryptography before quantum computers come around, which is what everyone assumed would be the thing that would break public key cryptography, then we have a real problem."

Fireside Alpha

88,638 views • 29 days ago

Arteta on the players battling a physical strain: “Yes, but when I see them track back, when we lose the ball and the habits that they have, it's just amazing. That's why I know what they are doing, these players. There is a reason why we are the only English team in the competition, because this league and this schedule takes the hell out of you and it's very difficult to do what we've done. “We are not perfect, we need to improve things, that's for sure, we recognise that, but let's value what these players have done because they deserve it.”
0:36

Arteta on the players battling a physical strain: “Yes, but when I see them track back, when we lose the ball and the habits that they have, it's just amazing. That's why I know what they are doing, these players. There is a reason why we are the only English team in the competition, because this league and this schedule takes the hell out of you and it's very difficult to do what we've done. “We are not perfect, we need to improve things, that's for sure, we recognise that, but let's value what these players have done because they deserve it.”

Connor Humm

55,160 views • 6 months ago

Bitcoin and Ethereum’s quantum threat is getting harder to ignore. In roughly two months, 100+ participants and their AI agents drove down the estimated cost of the arithmetic of a potential quantum attack on elliptic-curve cryptography. Their work is detailed in the new paper, with seven co-authors from StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation. The challenge focused on a calculation that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer would use to recover private keys from exposed public keys. The result: an 86.1% reduction from the challenge’s starting resource score, which combines logical qubits and key computational operations. That score was also over 50% below Google Quantum AI’s reported result for this calculation, although the circuit setups and measurement methods differ. In simple terms, algorithm improvements can reduce the resources needed for an important part of a quantum attack. For StarkWare, this complements our broader work on quantum security in blockchain, from STARK proofs and Starknet’s post-quantum roadmap to our successful quantum-safe Bitcoin transaction on mainnet. We’re helping measure the threat and build the defenses. Congratulations to our seven co-authors across StarkWare 🥷 and Starknet Foundation: Odin, sam, teddy, Akash, lucqs, robert, and Tarek | Security Engineer, alongside the wider community. Read the paper:
1:05

Bitcoin and Ethereum’s quantum threat is getting harder to ignore. In roughly two months, 100+ participants and their AI agents drove down the estimated cost of the arithmetic of a potential quantum attack on elliptic-curve cryptography. Their work is detailed in the new paper, with seven co-authors from StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation. The challenge focused on a calculation that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer would use to recover private keys from exposed public keys. The result: an 86.1% reduction from the challenge’s starting resource score, which combines logical qubits and key computational operations. That score was also over 50% below Google Quantum AI’s reported result for this calculation, although the circuit setups and measurement methods differ. In simple terms, algorithm improvements can reduce the resources needed for an important part of a quantum attack. For StarkWare, this complements our broader work on quantum security in blockchain, from STARK proofs and Starknet’s post-quantum roadmap to our successful quantum-safe Bitcoin transaction on mainnet. We’re helping measure the threat and build the defenses. Congratulations to our seven co-authors across StarkWare 🥷 and Starknet Foundation: Odin, sam, teddy, Akash, lucqs, robert, and Tarek | Security Engineer, alongside the wider community. Read the paper:

StarkWare 🥷

26,204 views • 1 month ago

Arteta: “We know what is at stake and the fact that, as a club, we haven't done it for so long is a reason for that. It talks about the difficulty but I just want to focus on the things that we can control, dominate, and we have done. “It's not that we have to do a lot of new things that we haven't done. No, no, no, let's keep doing a lot of it or almost all the things that we've done for nine months, because that's what has taken us all the way there. “On Wednesday, I saw a lot of them. And today we've gone back so we need to learn, we need to be very critical of ourselves, and then pick ourselves up because on Wednesday we have a big one coming up.”
0:36

Arteta: “We know what is at stake and the fact that, as a club, we haven't done it for so long is a reason for that. It talks about the difficulty but I just want to focus on the things that we can control, dominate, and we have done. “It's not that we have to do a lot of new things that we haven't done. No, no, no, let's keep doing a lot of it or almost all the things that we've done for nine months, because that's what has taken us all the way there. “On Wednesday, I saw a lot of them. And today we've gone back so we need to learn, we need to be very critical of ourselves, and then pick ourselves up because on Wednesday we have a big one coming up.”

Connor Humm

21,403 views • 7 months ago

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.
3:08

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,949 views • 2 years ago

Usually when there was a correction in the market all of the alt coins and there are thousands of them, would have a large correction but they would bounce back. This time, they're not bouncing back and the reason that is occurring is very simple. Investors have figured out you only need to own two positions to capture 97.5% of all the alpha of all crypto. That's Bitcoin itself and Ethereum. If you own those two, it doesn't matter what happens anywhere else because everything else is moving with a much higher vol to the downside and not recovering anymore because they have no use case.
3:39

Usually when there was a correction in the market all of the alt coins and there are thousands of them, would have a large correction but they would bounce back. This time, they're not bouncing back and the reason that is occurring is very simple. Investors have figured out you only need to own two positions to capture 97.5% of all the alpha of all crypto. That's Bitcoin itself and Ethereum. If you own those two, it doesn't matter what happens anywhere else because everything else is moving with a much higher vol to the downside and not recovering anymore because they have no use case.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

278,213 views • 11 months ago

Google says quantum will break Bitcoin in 9 minutes. They need 500,000 qubits. They have 72. Your bank OTP, UPI, Aadhaar all of that is more vulnerable than Bitcoin. Closed systems, legacy code, zero transparency. Bitcoin is open source. The whole world audits it. It has been preparing for quantum for years. 17 years of FUD. Bitcoin is still here. Don’t sell. That’s exactly what this headline wants you to do. #Bitcoin #QuantumFUD #QuantumvsBitcoin #QuantumComputer #BitcoinFacts
2:52

Google says quantum will break Bitcoin in 9 minutes. They need 500,000 qubits. They have 72. Your bank OTP, UPI, Aadhaar all of that is more vulnerable than Bitcoin. Closed systems, legacy code, zero transparency. Bitcoin is open source. The whole world audits it. It has been preparing for quantum for years. 17 years of FUD. Bitcoin is still here. Don’t sell. That’s exactly what this headline wants you to do. #Bitcoin #QuantumFUD #QuantumvsBitcoin #QuantumComputer #BitcoinFacts

CryptoWala

181,905 views • 7 months ago

Trump is babbling complete nonsense “Hopefully they'll be able to get these expensive computers going. You know, the reason you use computers is to make time so that it's like fast. You don't use them so that you have to come up with an answer three days later. And that's a little scary when they say what, what are they doing? You use a computer because it calculates quickly and you use paper because you save cost, but the paper turns out to be much quicker than the computer”
0:30

Trump is babbling complete nonsense “Hopefully they'll be able to get these expensive computers going. You know, the reason you use computers is to make time so that it's like fast. You don't use them so that you have to come up with an answer three days later. And that's a little scary when they say what, what are they doing? You use a computer because it calculates quickly and you use paper because you save cost, but the paper turns out to be much quicker than the computer”

Headquarters

1,599,521 views • 2 years ago

BITCOIN RAILS #61: QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY FOR BITCOIN | with Dan Boneh Dan Boneh 🔗 YOUTUBE: 🌿 SPOTIFY: One of the most prolific and influential cryptographers in the world, it’s difficult to fully quantify the impact that Dan Boneh has had on Bitcoin and digital assets more broadly. Through both his own research and his mentorship of some of the space’s most important contributors — e.g. Andrew Poelstra, Benedikt Bünz ☕️, and Robin Linus ⛊ — few people have done more to shape the cryptographic foundations underlying modern blockchains and digital finance. More recently, Dan co-authored Google's widely discussed paper, “Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities,” which reduced prior estimates of the resources required to run Shor’s algorithm against the elliptic-curve cryptography used by Bitcoin. The paper reignited debate around quantum computing timelines and the long-term security assumptions behind modern cryptocurrencies. In this episode of Bitcoin Rails, Dan and I discuss the current state of quantum computing, its potential implications for Bitcoin, and how he believes the Bitcoin community should think about preparing for a post-quantum future over the coming decade and beyond. And yes, Dan shares his take on the “when quantum” question in the interview, among other key perspectives. This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by my NEW sponsors: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin Defi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro and Dan’s history with cryptography and Bitcoin 11:44 — Shor's algorithm: how a 1994 paper became cryptography's most important threat 16:39 — Building a quantum computer: superconducting qubits vs neutral atoms 25:37 — When should we start worrying about quantum computers? The timeline debate 31:51 — Have we already reached quantum computing's “ahá” moment? 39:09 — Inside the Google paper: how Shor's algorithm was optimized 49:57 — The Bitcoin mempool attack and the 10-minute window 59:21 — Mitigation: what should Bitcoin do to prepare for quantum? 1:11:54 — Hash-based vs lattice-based signatures: Dan's case for lattice 1:23:15 — ZK proofs, BIP361, and what to do with Satoshi's coins 1:31:52 — Encrypted mempools and MEV 1:38:29 — Why Bitcoin will survive quantum and Dan's message to Bitcoin builders
1:44:02

BITCOIN RAILS #61: QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY FOR BITCOIN | with Dan Boneh Dan Boneh 🔗 YOUTUBE: 🌿 SPOTIFY: One of the most prolific and influential cryptographers in the world, it’s difficult to fully quantify the impact that Dan Boneh has had on Bitcoin and digital assets more broadly. Through both his own research and his mentorship of some of the space’s most important contributors — e.g. Andrew Poelstra, Benedikt Bünz ☕️, and Robin Linus ⛊ — few people have done more to shape the cryptographic foundations underlying modern blockchains and digital finance. More recently, Dan co-authored Google's widely discussed paper, “Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities,” which reduced prior estimates of the resources required to run Shor’s algorithm against the elliptic-curve cryptography used by Bitcoin. The paper reignited debate around quantum computing timelines and the long-term security assumptions behind modern cryptocurrencies. In this episode of Bitcoin Rails, Dan and I discuss the current state of quantum computing, its potential implications for Bitcoin, and how he believes the Bitcoin community should think about preparing for a post-quantum future over the coming decade and beyond. And yes, Dan shares his take on the “when quantum” question in the interview, among other key perspectives. This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by my NEW sponsors: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin Defi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro and Dan’s history with cryptography and Bitcoin 11:44 — Shor's algorithm: how a 1994 paper became cryptography's most important threat 16:39 — Building a quantum computer: superconducting qubits vs neutral atoms 25:37 — When should we start worrying about quantum computers? The timeline debate 31:51 — Have we already reached quantum computing's “ahá” moment? 39:09 — Inside the Google paper: how Shor's algorithm was optimized 49:57 — The Bitcoin mempool attack and the 10-minute window 59:21 — Mitigation: what should Bitcoin do to prepare for quantum? 1:11:54 — Hash-based vs lattice-based signatures: Dan's case for lattice 1:23:15 — ZK proofs, BIP361, and what to do with Satoshi's coins 1:31:52 — Encrypted mempools and MEV 1:38:29 — Why Bitcoin will survive quantum and Dan's message to Bitcoin builders

Isabel Foxen Duke⚡️

123,407 views • 5 months ago

We don't have a seller yet. However the syndicate ends up, we don't know. This is a complicated deal. Two factors to consider: Number one, we need Xi and Trump to agree they're gonna be a buyer and a seller. That's number one. Number two, we need to figure out a way to take care of Senator Cotton's concerns around the algorithm and many others who are not going to give an indemnification for using the original algorithm. We have to solve for that too. My bet, not to sound arrogant, is I will be there at the table at the end.
0:41

We don't have a seller yet. However the syndicate ends up, we don't know. This is a complicated deal. Two factors to consider: Number one, we need Xi and Trump to agree they're gonna be a buyer and a seller. That's number one. Number two, we need to figure out a way to take care of Senator Cotton's concerns around the algorithm and many others who are not going to give an indemnification for using the original algorithm. We have to solve for that too. My bet, not to sound arrogant, is I will be there at the table at the end.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

35,678 views • 1 year ago