I'm going to fix some of the highlighting bitcoinchan made that does not show copy and paste. Because the definition of plagiarism is copying and pasting stuff (without attribution).
Posts 1, 3, 4 and 6 are correct as they are. Red is the post which Lauda is accused of having plagiarized, blue is the text that bitcoinchan has incorrectly classified as plagiarism.
Post 2:I see no information about 128 bit keys being broken. Any information found on stackexchange has no guarantee to be correct. It confirms what I said. SHA can't be reversed; it has to be brute forced.
It clearly indicated that quantum computers are more powerful than the computers of today, which is logical. There is no information on there internet about this. You're talking out of a hat.
Yes 128 bit security is 18446744073709551616 times faster to bruteforce than 256 bit. This doesn't mean that it is vulnerable when used.
It's obvious that people are commenting without proper knowledge in quantum related technology. The computers are not nowhere near ready to do any complicated jobs.
The main challenge in a Qcomputer is to make sure that the qubits are entangled (if you're familiar with Schrödinger’s cat you will know what I'm talking about; look that up). The computer must stay in this state (for the cat - it can't be simultaneously dead or alive) long enough to perform calculations and get results. The ones that we have can keep the state for miliseconds or maybe a couple of seconds. That's not long enough to do something useful. To break encryption these computers must have 500-2000qubits. Existing quantum computers operate with 14 qubits at maximum.
I have not forgotten about D-wave though. The company D-Wave claims that it has produced a 512 qubit Qcomputer. That is not a real quantum computer because it uses quantum annealing effect and can't demonstrate full properties of one. It is basically set to do a few specific tasks and represents no danger to encryption.
To summarize: You're wrong. Existing implementations have not shown that they can beat 128bit encryption. They aren't even close. That's the current situation. I'm not saying that in 5 years we won't have better technology. We might operate with 1400 qubits or be stuck at 140. Nobody really knows.
http://web.archive.org/web/20160204084306/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1026125.40Quantum computers don’t reside on the desktop of every other teenage hacker wishing to eavesdrop on his classmates’ Facebook sessions for good reason. Creation of a full-scale quantum computer involves many engineering challenges that some specialists consider to be impossible to accomplish.
The main challenge is making sure qubits are entangled, because each quantum system tends to collapse into a classical state, lacking valuable undetermined properties. We can’t avoid mentioning the long-suffering Schrödinger’s cat here, which eventually can’t stay both dead and alive simultaneously – a quantum computer, however, must maintain this miraculous state for a long enough time to perform calculation and measure results. Modern prototypes can keep this state for milliseconds, and in some cases, a couple of seconds. The task becomes more and more complicated when the qubit count rises too. To break cryptosystems, computers must have 500-2000 qubits (depending on the algorithm and key length), but existing quantum computers operate with 14 qubits at maximum.
That is why today’s quantum computers are not usable for breaking your SSL certificate, but the situation may change in 5 years.
Against this background, Canadian company D-Wave brassily claims that it produces 512-qubit quantum computers. Moreover, these devices are available for sale. Many experts say that the D-Wave computer is not “real,” because it utilizes a quantum annealing effect and can’t demonstrate full properties of a quantum computer.
http://web.archive.org/web/20190507194853/https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/quantum-computers-and-the-end-of-security/2852/Post 5:Is this supposed to be a real discussion or some troll thread? You can't really find scientific proof for something like this to not to exist. If there is no proof that it exists then it should be assumed that it does not.
What one can do is explain how the Bible and whole religion is messed. As an example take praying.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. What will happen when we pray? Nothing.I'm not exactly sure from which part this is but I know that it exists "Ask and it will be given to you". If we all ask for cancer to be cured it definitely will.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160205222449/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035211.0What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way: Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. Will anything happen? No. And the fact that nothing happens proves to us that God is imaginary. Here's why: Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work. Jesus says in many different places that he and God will answer your prayers. The fact that those promises are untrue tells us that God is imaginary.
http://web.archive.org/web/20181017072746/https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/why-wont-god-heal-amputees.70716/page-32