Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Worried about quantum computing overpowering SHA-256, but not the 4-digit PIN securing your bank account?

179,777 views • 9 months ago •via X (Twitter)

32 Comments

skot's profile picture
skot9 months ago

Bankers don’t even need your pin to steal your funds

Ada Jo's profile picture
Ada Jo9 months ago

sorry this is really not thoughtful. all major tech and fintech companies are already updating their systems to be quantum resilient. somehow they don’t say it’s 15 years ahead and not relevant. your pin won’t be hacked since this will be taken care of. why can’t blockchains do it? because it’s extremely hard to update the decentralised tech the way it is built. It would take years of coordination and implementation efforts, maybe even a hard fork to make it happen.

mert's profile picture
mert9 months ago

you might wanna consult your parents on what types of drugs they railed during your birth seems to have done some damage

Tony | thebitcoinway.com's profile picture
Tony | thebitcoinway.com9 months ago

I'm telling you, you can't be bearish enough on human IQ sometimes.🤣

jordanmmck's profile picture
jordanmmck9 months ago

Not sure if you're trolling Mr. Watts, but SHA256 is not the concern. It's the signature scheme, ECDSA which is at risk. It's the thing which allows you to spend your coins. And we know for sure that a QC can break it given enough qubits.

FiatHawk - Bitcoin is Hope's profile picture
FiatHawk - Bitcoin is Hope9 months ago

Worried about a decentralized network reaching consensus vs a centralized entity. Making a centralized entity quantum secure is easy.

Tom Trevethan's profile picture
Tom Trevethan9 months ago

4 digit pins are not vulnerable to any kind of quantum or computational attack

Anonymist 🛡️'s profile picture
Anonymist 🛡️9 months ago

I feel you may be missing the point. Also, it’s a fairly loose argument for not implementing any sort of defence.

Doug Johnson's profile picture
Doug Johnson9 months ago

Nobody who knows anything about bitcoin and quantum is worried about SHA-256 You’re trying to dunk on quantum concerned folks and instead you showed your ignorance

Vini B 「thecoding.dev」's profile picture
Vini B 「thecoding.dev」9 months ago

lol, this post is telling - dude has no idea what he is promoting

Peter Spina ⚒ GoldSeek | SilverSeek's profile picture
Peter Spina ⚒ GoldSeek | SilverSeek9 months ago

Can Satoshi upgrade its wallets in time?

Dave Garven's profile picture
Dave Garven9 months ago

Silly argument. Banks have recourse and customer service not to mention there are limits for withdraw and sending money. Bitcoin you get hacked and it's never coming back.

John Zervos's profile picture
John Zervos9 months ago

If you worry about the Quantum Computer threat to Bitcoin, i feel you, i got you.... SELL YOUR BITCOIN IMMEDIATELY.................................. to me!🫡🟧

D E C E N T M O N E Y's profile picture
D E C E N T M O N E Y9 months ago

The quantum FUD is overblown, but this trope is pleb slop For one, banking systems are centralised and permissioned so they can rate limit attempts, making brute forcing practically impossible (quantum or not) No such limit exists with Bitcoin. You’re just running the numbers with no upper limit on attempts

MewPewPew's profile picture
MewPewPew9 months ago

Sorry sir, you have this wrong. Banking is back stoped by humans and governments that would backstop a quantum attack. What backstops bitcoin? If everyone’s wallets were drained, could their politicians do anything about it?

Mash's profile picture
Mash9 months ago

Nothing to do with SHA. Also, the bank is a centralized entity, so it can just do a rollback and everything is fine

Entropy Capital's profile picture
Entropy Capital9 months ago

Hey the issue is that if quantum breaks Bitcoin then the network is functionally pointless but if it breaks digital dollars then we can just go back to paper money hope this helps

Dogecoin's profile picture
Dogecoin9 months ago

how many tries does a bank give? 3? perhaps 5? Bitcoin it is endless.

Fort Ex's profile picture
Fort Ex9 months ago

In all fairness transactions from your bank can be reversed. You need higher security for irreversible transactions.

Yuvi Lightman | Quantus's profile picture
Yuvi Lightman | Quantus9 months ago

Please do basic research on the topic before commenting, Mr. Bot 🤖

Glendail hester's profile picture
Glendail hester9 months ago

Well my bank account is insured by the federal government up to $250,000 good ole FDIC. I can not find anyone to insure my bitcoin?

Kevihaiceth 💹🧲's profile picture
Kevihaiceth 💹🧲9 months ago

people trust 4 digits more than crypto sometimes.

Michael H's profile picture
Michael H9 months ago

3 tries with the 4 digit Pin and you als need the card. Endless tries with QC. QC cannot break the 4 digit Pin but Bitcoin!

kEllo's profile picture
kEllo9 months ago

This post goes hard if you are a retard

William Evanl's profile picture
William Evanl9 months ago

Huge bitcoin bull but this has never made any sense, completely unrelated, a person doesn't get infinite attempts to crack my pin code (which is trivial) and can't steal my money from a distance even if they have it.

Gains of Glory 💪's profile picture
Gains of Glory 💪9 months ago

I work with teams already making such things quantum safe at a major fintech firm. Companies can do that. The issue is how we get btc to be quantum proofed.

Mark Hubbard.'s profile picture
Mark Hubbard.9 months ago

One doesn’t count the other out, but there’s a worrisome difference: the entire banking sector has a concerted program to install post-quantum security solutions… QKD, etc. However, BTC is decentralised thus has a problem. Who is working on the fix be it hard fork or whatever? All I see is accounts and whales glibly stating don’t worry about BTC, worry about your bank pin. I’m not worried about my bank pin, companies like IONQ are installing the security solutions for that already. But you tell me who is organising the crypto solution? More people such as @caprioleio etc are becoming concerned .

Paolo 🤌🏻 Aga's profile picture
Paolo 🤌🏻 Aga9 months ago

This comparison shows only incompetence and/or ignorance of the technologies involved.

Rami ben Ze'ev's profile picture
Rami ben Ze'ev9 months ago

Do you mean the PIN that requires the presence of a bank card to be used?

The Yak's profile picture
The Yak9 months ago

Sha-256 isn't the problem it's ecdsa

Lord Flashheart 🐸 - No Direct Messages (DM's)'s profile picture
Lord Flashheart 🐸 - No Direct Messages (DM's)9 months ago

$QRL @QRLedger

luke veil's profile picture
luke veil9 months ago

Imagine not recognizing the difference between a mutable centralized ledger and an immutable distributed ledger

Related Videos