Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Merits 3 from 1 user
Re: Game theory involving Quantum Resistance protocol
by
squatter
on 24/10/2019, 20:23:10 UTC
⭐ Merited by achow101 (3)
I afraid, what you have said there is not persuasive. It seems to me that you have chosen not to use hashed keys in taproot and you are just justifying it.

Besides the irrelevance of some points that you have made about the existing exposed public keys and your highly suspicious assumption about miners having mysterious privileges in the presence of QCs, the most confusing part is still your misrepresentation of the main problem.

How is 30% of the existing supply irrelevant?

He didn't suggest miners had mysterious privileges, just that they could censor transactions that don't meet their criteria -- same as today.

At the time of this writing, QC is a very expensive technology and it is not scalable, i.e. costs grow exponentially by the scale of the system (number of qubits, number of gates and their resistance level to decoherence, ... ). We are not expecting large QCs showing up out of nowhere, breaking sec256k1 keys in few seconds. Rather there will be generations and development phases and it is highly expected that we will have machines that are able to break bitcoin public keys in feasible time but not in a glance or in few minutes.

These sorts of arrogant assumptions are dangerous. You have no idea what kind of breakthroughs could be made in the future.