You are also lost if you report at the level of the Bild newspaper. You could have posted the advantages which are also listed at the Sparkasse. I'm not a fan of Sparkasse at all, but the whole article isn't that bad.
•
1313
•
@Playrio sorry but there's so much nonsense in there that I can't take its benefits seriously😅
••
@stefan_21 Well, the blockchain still has problems with the hackbar. The elephant with the quantum computers is still in the room and I think it's kind of naive to say that they are still further away and that's why we don't implement the prospective ideas. So theoretically it is possible to generate the 50% through a hard fork and don't even talk about connecting GPUs which is theoretically possible but now practically impossible
••
@topicswithhead but I'm also a layman, so please approach everything with caution. I have no idea how it all works technically.
••
@topicswithhead What gets hacked are always the third parties, i.e. the exchanges, custodians, etc.
Hacking Bitcoin is virtually impossible. The code is open source and if there was a gateway, it would have been exploited long ago.
It will be decades before quantum computers can become "dangerous" - but there are already concrete proposals for switching to quantum-safe addresses - so I'm not worried about that.
I don't quite know what you mean by the 50%, but if you mean a 51% attack - that would require 51% of the total computing power, which is also virtually impossible, and then you could use this attack to carry out a "double spend", for example, i.e. execute a transaction twice. The nodes would then accept this as legitimate because the longest chain wins in this case.
To explain the risk of this, I always like to refer to this video by Andreas Antonopoulos :D
https://youtu.be/ncPyMUfNyVM?si=_H57AX3FuaxVkz8J
Hacking Bitcoin is virtually impossible. The code is open source and if there was a gateway, it would have been exploited long ago.
It will be decades before quantum computers can become "dangerous" - but there are already concrete proposals for switching to quantum-safe addresses - so I'm not worried about that.
I don't quite know what you mean by the 50%, but if you mean a 51% attack - that would require 51% of the total computing power, which is also virtually impossible, and then you could use this attack to carry out a "double spend", for example, i.e. execute a transaction twice. The nodes would then accept this as legitimate because the longest chain wins in this case.
To explain the risk of this, I always like to refer to this video by Andreas Antonopoulos :D
https://youtu.be/ncPyMUfNyVM?si=_H57AX3FuaxVkz8J
••
@stefan_21 My thesis was only that it is gullible to say we have plans but are not implementing them because quantum computers are still 10 years away. We have also seen with the LLMs that a technical leap can shorten development by 10 years. With the quantum computer, the 51% would probably be possible and all it would take is for one to appear tomorrow and then all the money would be gone. That's why I said it's kind of naive to say it's a problem for a few years. I also said myself about the normal 51% that it is theoretically possible but practically impossible
••
@topicswithhead Quantum computing is a long process and won't suddenly work overnight :)
The goal in this case would clearly be to crack Satoshi's addresses - these are still the old legacy addresses and they are also less secure than today's addresses.
If the elliptical curve can be calculated backwards, then Satoshi's coins could come back onto the market at some point.
However, the newer addresses are already double-hashed and it won't be enough for QC for many more years - let alone whether this will ever be the case.
And if it does, you can update to SHA 512 addresses, for example.
Bitcoin is always such that something is only changed in the code and can only be changed if it is really necessary. But this is a feature and not a bug :)
The goal in this case would clearly be to crack Satoshi's addresses - these are still the old legacy addresses and they are also less secure than today's addresses.
If the elliptical curve can be calculated backwards, then Satoshi's coins could come back onto the market at some point.
However, the newer addresses are already double-hashed and it won't be enough for QC for many more years - let alone whether this will ever be the case.
And if it does, you can update to SHA 512 addresses, for example.
Bitcoin is always such that something is only changed in the code and can only be changed if it is really necessary. But this is a feature and not a bug :)
••
@stefan_21 I already know all this, I'm just bothered by the assumption that it's still a long way off and that's why you don't have to go all in yet. I find that very unsatisfactory, to call it unhackable. Why not play it safe now. Does it cost more compute per block or why isn't it happening yet?
••
@topicswithhead Because the need is still missing.
There are currently more pressing issues such as scaling and privacy that need to be addressed first :)
There are currently more pressing issues such as scaling and privacy that need to be addressed first :)
••
@stefan_21 unsatisfactory is a completely unnecessary reason, but it's one of the three reasons why I'm not increasing my Bitcoin position. It bothers me a lot 😂
•
11
•@topicswithhead I understand the idea, but that's the way it is with a decentralized network without a management level that makes decisions. If the network decides to make an update, it will be made.
The people with their nodes decide that. If there was an update for quantum-safe addresses, I would install it on my node and if the threat was big enough, most network participants would do the same :)
The people with their nodes decide that. If there was an update for quantum-safe addresses, I would install it on my node and if the threat was big enough, most network participants would do the same :)
••