this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2026
151 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

6291 readers
588 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The firm's senior financial strategist is concerned the advancements in the field of quantum computing will break Bitcoin.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

In theory, quantum computing should be faster once hardware that's faster is available, and only if the problem you're trying to solve is in BQP, which isn't that much of what computers are used for. Progress has been slow, but continuous, so the gap between simulating a quantum computer and actually using one has been shrinking. In October last year, Google's Willow chip was verified to have achieved quantum advantage, i.e. done something that could be checked externally faster than a classical computer could have. It was only 13,000x faster, and in one specific task, which isn't really enough to change the world, but ten or twenty years ago it was still thought to be fairly plausible that the physics might not be right and even if the practical problems were solved, they still wouldn't work.

Even if quantum computers get ludicrously fast, they're still not going to be especially common, and they'll be a piece of specialised equipment, more like an electron microscope than a home PC. Most people just don't need to do any stuff that's in BQP, so don't care if they can do it faster. If you're a company, university or government body that needs to do one of the very specific things that will be faster, though, they'll be indispensable.

Edit: Of particular relevance to the article, at the moment, SHA256, the hashing algorithm underpinning Bitcoin, is considered to be quantum-resistant. Someone might discover some new maths that means a quantum computer can break it faster than a classical computer, but at the moment, even though people have looked into it, there's no indication that it's possible, so it should never become easier to break Bitcoin etc. with a quantum computer than a classical one.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It was only 13,000x faster, and in one specific task

Useless, contrived task.

at the moment, SHA256, the hashing algorithm underpinning Bitcoin, is considered to be quantum-resistant... so it should never become easier to break Bitcoin etc. with a quantum computer than a classical one.

It's absolutely wild how grifters will hype articles like this without scientific basis.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

But that is the thing: was it actually faster or did they just spend 10'000 hours optimizing that side and 0 hours optimizing the normal calculation?