Quote from: mixoftix on November 25, 2018, 04:40:30 PM

Quote from: aliashraf on November 25, 2018, 12:34:58 PM

1- 'Guessing' a 'more likely' private key (using the vulnerability in the Random Number Generator),

please keep us posted about any improvement by QC in RNG attacks, Ali. I just googled and found nothing worthy. but found something amazing in these old stuffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generator_attack#cite_note-20
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/12/android_bug_batters_bitcoin_wallets/
https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-08-11-android

------------------

now, there is a question. while machine learning could be used in attack to RNG and macine learning could also improve by QC, there should be a chance in doing something real with QC on RNG - just a gesture..

update:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_machine_learning

It is a new proposal: Attacking RNG by machine learning boosted by QC. Your previous suggestion was taking advantage of a vulnerable RNG to narrowing down the search space and using QC for boosting the process. I am afraid the new attack is unlikely to work, as well.

We have Cryptographically Secure Pseudo Random Number Generators (CSPRNG), that are provably safe against AI techniques including neural networks and machine learning. For instance suppose we are getting closer to machine learning being disruptively boosted by a hypothetical QC machine reasonably cheap and powerful. Wallets would be able to apply a Von Neumann extractor to their systems in case they have not already considered it.

Bottom line: QC is just another technology and technology can't fight mathematics. It is always possible to force cryptographers to use more sophisticated techniques because of significant technological achievements that provide more processing powers, but it is not possible to beat cryptography in the race.