There are. But that doesn’t mean they’re cheap to operate.
Yes, I am aware that it needs to be difficult.
Then you should be aware of why bitcoin has a transaction limit. A technological revolution like quantum computing that makes it possible to keep up with the ever-increasing difficultly problem would threaten to destroy bitcoin by making the processing too easy.
my own PS; I’ve read of several situations where people have tried to hijack bitcoin transactions and to fabricate false ones. They’ve failed due to the strict protocols in place.
You do understand that those “protocols” are an inherent part of the bitcoin algorithm and its transaction difficulty, right? And that if quantum computing makes the calculations too easy those “protocols” cease to function? The entire function of the system is based on the assumption that the CPU power required for a successful attack can not be assembled. If quantum computing is as great as you believe it is then hijacking the blockchain will be easy.
Cheap? not at first. After a while, even someone like you could probably afford one. Eventually it’ll be the standard. Assuming humanity doesn’t kill its self.
I think that’s an oversimplification.
The mining procedure has many steps, and multiple miners that come up with the same answer. All that information is checked before anything proceeds. The processing would never be “too easy”, as there are safeguards built in.
It’s not necessarily the calculations that are difficult, though i’m sure they are too. The major hurdle is creating a hash within the proper parameters, and submitting it. It’s then checked against all other hashes before approval. All built in and done within the software.
It’s not as easy as just having a fast computer and submitting false data and suddenly you’re rich.
No it isn’t. There is no central authority checking, only the consensus of miners doing the calculations. With enough CPU power you can generate the false data along with false confirmations of the data and it becomes the new blockchain.
It’s not necessarily the calculations that are difficult, though i’m sure they are too.
Yes it is. The protection is that because of the difficulty generating sufficient hashes that you can successfully hijack the blockchain requires too much CPU power for anyone to ever do it in the real world. It’s one of those “mathematically possible, impossible to execute” attacks that are often found in cryptography. But if quantum computing is as effective as you believe it will be then this potentially changes and the blockchain is no longer secure. And if the blockchain is not secure bitcoin’s value immediately crashes to zero.
2008 and 2019, massive increases of the monetary base, silver with 1000% upside (C&H from 80’s to now), you really want to hold fiat? Negative interest rates coming more widespread, forcing you to SPEND.
This s show has yet to begin and it will, wait for more unemployment figures and bankruptcies
You are going to run to something, pick something that holds and increases in value
That would require the majority of nodes to agree that it’s correct information, and not an attack. If all the nodes are upgraded to quantum computing, it would be impossible, as it is now.
Obviously that means there will be some upgrading involved. Nodes might go down for a few days each while they re-tool. I suppose during that time, if someone were properly set up, they could potentially produce false transactions and enough of the nodes not be able to keep up to let it pass. I don’t see that happening, but I guess it is possible.
to your second point, it’s not the difficulty of creating the hashes, its creating the hashes and verifying them with all the other nodes. Then being the first one to do it, and be correct.
The whole node network would have to fail before false transactions would be successful.
This very conversation probably happened when bitcoin was invented.
Ok, but I think there is an argument to be made that if currencies fail, then cryptocurrencies will fail with it. I doubt, if the world economy fails, that anyone would be willing to give you commodities for crypto.
You’re not required to participate in this conversation. The answer to my question has been given. The conversation over the validity of cryptocurrencies has evolved from that. I think it’s an important conversation, even if it’s not specifically part of my original question.
Here is your problematic assumption. The first person to get a successful quantum bitcoin miner instantly hijacks the blockchain and takes ownership of all bitcoins. Bitcoin does not survive long enough for everyone else to upgrade to quantum computing.
it’s not the difficulty of creating the hashes
No, it is literally the difficulty of creating the hashes that makes it impossible to execute the attack in real life. It is mathematically possible to hijack the blockchain, it just requires an impossible amount of CPU power to generate the required hashes. But if the hashes were too easy the CPU power required would go down to a level that is physically possible to obtain.
Actually Bitcoin had a hashpower crisis in the early days, I was there when it happened, GPU’s added to the chain. Then came the pools.
We’re also in for an alt chain hashpower bomb once Ethereum goes full PoS and that power moves in.
You’re at greater risk of collusion of miner pools, and hashpower and more, that actually happened with a recent discussion to reclaim coins by rolling back the blocks and forking it, they thought no because that would DESTROY the trust in it and evaporate their value.
They actually talked about colluding and invalidating blocks, but the risk and loss of faith in it was too great. They would lose more than they gained from the fork.
At that point, the quantum computer would be slowed down to process with the older nodes. Afterall, the older nodes have to verify the correct information for it to proceed. It only speeds up as the whole node system upgrades.
Ethereum has its own blockchain though, doesnt it?
If it uses the same system as bitcoin, that could be a serious problem. Let me do some reading right quick. I have 0 investment in Ethereum.
You’re missing the point. Blockchain integrity is decided by a majority vote, if you have 51% of the votes you decide the blockchain result. Mathematically you could generate a ton of votes for your hijack, but in practical terms the CPU power required to generate sufficient hashes to execute the attack is beyond what is possible to obtain. But if you have a quantum miner (with the promised effectiveness at solving cryptography problems) you can run an arbitrarily large number of nodes, control 51% of the votes, and set the blockchain to whatever you feel like doing.
They actually talked about colluding and invalidating blocks, but the risk and loss of faith in it was too great.
And now you get it. The threat of quantum computing is that a quantum miner doesn’t need to collude with anyone, it can generate an arbitrarily large number of nodes under its direct control and collude with itself to do whatever it wants with the blockchain.
