P vs NP
There is always a computational cost. You can break any encryption with any sufficiently powerful computer. The question isn’t one of math, but one of cost. (And current capabilities.)
So SHA 256, etc works not because it is unbreakable, but because it is not feasible to break with any reasonable cost in current computing power + money.
As computers become more powerful, we throw more bits into the algorithm or develop better algorithms.
[edit] (This is also the reason that attack vectors typically target people and not the math — because people are the ones most easily fooled.)
So SHA 256, etc works not because it is unbreakable, but because it is not feasible to break with any reasonable cost in current computing power + money.
As computers become more powerful, we throw more bits into the algorithm or develop better algorithms.
[edit] (This is also the reason that attack vectors typically target people and not the math — because people are the ones most easily fooled.)
Last edited on
The question of whether P=NP is completely unrelated to quantum computers.
Quantum computation has no effect on cryptographic hash functions nor on symmetric encryption. It only affects elliptic curve cryptography and prime factorization-based ciphers, such as RSA. The former because it relies on the difficulty of the discrete logarithm problem, and the latter because it relies on the difficulty of factorizing large semiprimes. Both of these problems are solved in polynomial time using Shor's algorithm, an algorithm for quantum computers.
So in short, the existence of quantum computers breaks not only cryptocurrencies, but also all forms of secure Internet communication, since all of them rely on the security of public-key cryptography, and (to my knowledge) all implementations are based on either RSA or ECC.
Quantum computation has no effect on cryptographic hash functions nor on symmetric encryption. It only affects elliptic curve cryptography and prime factorization-based ciphers, such as RSA. The former because it relies on the difficulty of the discrete logarithm problem, and the latter because it relies on the difficulty of factorizing large semiprimes. Both of these problems are solved in polynomial time using Shor's algorithm, an algorithm for quantum computers.
So in short, the existence of quantum computers breaks not only cryptocurrencies, but also all forms of secure Internet communication, since all of them rely on the security of public-key cryptography, and (to my knowledge) all implementations are based on either RSA or ECC.
guest, top? dafuq?
I mean as above, its safe to say that if an NP problem is solved (however that happens) then anything that relies upon it for security is immediately insecure and unusable.
I mean as above, its safe to say that if an NP problem is solved (however that happens) then anything that relies upon it for security is immediately insecure and unusable.
| You can break any encryption with any sufficiently powerful computer. |
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cryptography/One_time_pads
| cgunforfree wrote: |
|---|
| my question is as simple :) as others if P = NP are crypto currencies dead ? aka with these Quantum computers you never know if SHA 256, 512 1024 whatever more will secure block chain ! so please answer this :) P = NP proof or quantum computers will affect SHA or not ? Guest Top |
Actually, if you allow the turboprocessors to re-aggregate the 256 or 512 SHA, it will produce certain dual-blocked hash chains. That allows you to use a 256 or a 512 quantum computer for aggregating nonbinary sequences in a secure blockchain. 1024 quantums will overload the heterodynes in the blockchain servers, so it's not idea to use them.
Did that make sense?
If you still don't quite get it, I suggest you post your question to https://old.reddit.com/r/VXJunkies/ as they are very knowledgeable about these sorts of problems.
Last edited on
Did that make sense?
nope. But you should apply to that guy who is making a movie about hacking, it sounded about right :P (the failing is all mine, I don't know much at all about crypto nor quantum computing and mixing the two is like you started speaking another language).
If I need more crypto than xor of a random stream, Ill use a library or pay someone else to work it.
nope. But you should apply to that guy who is making a movie about hacking, it sounded about right :P (the failing is all mine, I don't know much at all about crypto nor quantum computing and mixing the two is like you started speaking another language).
If I need more crypto than xor of a random stream, Ill use a library or pay someone else to work it.
Last edited on
A web search meta-link for the basics of quantum computing:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+basics+of+quantum+computing&t=ffsb&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+basics+of+quantum+computing&t=ffsb&ia=web
Well somebody removed the original post... but the answer is simple: Simply assume P = NP, then hack into every financial system in the world.
| Going to the link I posted should clear everything up ;) |
VX is not something I'm very familiar with but I'd suggest seeking out a local community. Actually talk to someone about it and they'll be able to loan you some decent introductory material.
The problem with the forum @agent max linked is that while it does contain some good material the argot used in the hobby has become a bit of an internet meme because of its impenetrability, and so a subset of new "contributors" unhelpfully post gibberish there.
That's why I recommend finding an in-person hobby group. My experiences have been entirely positive. For example one guy I met with was even kind enough to share his copy of Skinner and Grunfeldt's An Introduction to Harmonic Analysis. The book contains basically everything I know about the hobby, and it is not easy to find.
Nice! I'll definitely look into that book! Is it by any chance referred to as "The Orange Book?"
I assume yes, since the cover of mine is orange. However I can't say for sure, I'm new.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.