Have BitCoins become worthless overnight

I like the second paragraph, "It has little practical value" almost a pun!

"Google said that its quantum processor, called Sycamore, finished a calculation in 3 minutes, 20 seconds — and that it would take the world's fastest supercomputer 10,000 years to do the same thing.

The calculation was a random sampling problem, similar to looking at the various combinations that could come from dice or a gambling machine. It has little practical value, other than to test how well the processor works."

Google Claims Breakthrough In Blazingly Fast Computing

"Google's quantum supremacy could mean it is able to perform in 200 seconds what would take a powerful computer 10,000 years and potentially mean bitcoin, and the encryption that underpins it, could be broken. "

Could Google Be About To Break Bitcoin?

I'm sure glad I didn't buy any of the blasted things. I think I'd rather have gold. Maybe gold will rise because of this "breakthrough".

The good thing is encryption is it is always in favor of the encryptor. Every additional bit doubles the time it takes to break it. I've always wondered why they would not use enough bits to make breaking the encryption attempt be practically impossible because there's not enough time in the Universe. I've kind of concluded the government doesn't want it too long otherwise they would not be able to crack it and snoop on people.

Bit coins have something to do with Data Mining, someone is about to get much richer.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Bit coins have something to do with Data Mining, someone is about to get much richer.

Maybe new coins. But the first batch may have just got degraded.

The problem with quantum computing is I'm not sure it is Turing Computable so it's not clear whether or not Google actually did something meaningful or not. How do they know the answer is right? I'd like to see the computer program.

a reply to: dfnj2015

If you're abreast of the crypto sphere, it will come as no surprise that many, including BTC, are aware and taking measures to guard against quantum computing.

What these articles do is create FUD, and in turn, a buying opportunity for those pushing it or those telling these media outlets to push it.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I saw a headline about IBM challenging googles claim of quantum supremacy the other day. Ill post if i can find it.

Bitcoin has always been without definite worth.
It is only worth what someone is willing to pay. Like all things.

If somehow society breaks down to the point that money is no longer accepted.
Bitcoin, gold, silver, steel (iron), even land will not be worth the physical holding of such. At least until some time passes where there is a new society built.

"Quantum Computing" is such a lark at this point. It has no practical uses, and all of the instances where what ever "quantum" computer solved a problem in record time are simply because it was designed specifically for that single problem. They need to be entirely re-built to solve a different type of problem, and in some cases even another problem of the same type.

They always boast of solving something it would take another computer a million hours to do, but can it run a modern OS without proprietary programming for each given task? The answer is no, and for the immediate future (read 5 or so years minimum) they will remain that way.

Could you use it to mine crypto? Sure, but it would be very inefficient, very expensive, and lack the power of a stock GPU that has a wide array of capabilities rather than being a specialist.

The best way I can describe it is as follows. Sure you could put Usain Bolt in the Decathlon, and he would win the 100m race, but he would be utterly crushed in almost every other event.

Actually in a downtrend now after that new low......it's impulsive down, not a correction....Elliott waves huh....

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: dfnj2015

I saw a headline about IBM challenging googles claim of quantum supremacy the other day. Ill post if i can find it.

They did not really, because IBM "just" used a better algorithm for the same problem, so they claim.

Here are some facts:

- To simulate the 53 Qubits of Sycamore, the Summit Supercomputer (would have) used about 80 Petabyte hdd-space to save the simulation as a swap file.
- For 54 qubits, Summit would have had to use 160 Petabyte (out of a total of 250 Petabyte) - so there is a physical break point.
- Sycamore is faaaar too "fuzzy" in its results to bring forth any bitcoin, ever. The needed algorithms for this problem are not "quantum-computer compatible", at least in the year 2019.
- At a simulated 73 qubits, Summit would really need 10,000 years - and about 80 zettabyte of swap file space, which is unrealistic, to say the least.

Nice blog about this, too

a reply to: dubiousatworst

"Quantum Computing" is such a lark at this point. It has no practical uses, and all of the instances where what ever "quantum" computer solved a problem in record time are simply because it was designed specifically for that single problem. They need to be entirely re-built to solve a different type of problem, and in some cases even another problem of the same type.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss quantum computing. There are some really cool things being tested in various labs today where the QC's ability to "crunch down" so quickly is almost nothing short of amazing.

Sooner or later (actually sooner) someone will develop some real world applications where this type of HW just destroys any other computer in terms of processing time. And as soon as the payoff for doing so becomes larger than the cost - it will be a mad dash on the part of the computer companies to get one out there.

Watch...

a reply to: Riffrafter
which is why i stipulated 5 years minimum.
One of the major problems will be related to the number of qbits needed to fix/correct for noise, and that number isn't in the hundreds but the thousands. This should put it about 10 years out as of now (Using Moore's law as a rough estimate) given Google is using 54 qbits, and doubling every 2 years puts the number in the thousands 10 years from now.

I do admit to having some hang ups on these actually using superstates in the first place, but those hangups would be accounted for with aforesaid number of qbits.


Also here is a "classical" approach to a system using a single GPU that could parse yottabytes of information through compression... in 2015
www.youtube.com...

Basically if you have really specialized way of throwing out un-needed data, or only highlighting the important information to process, you can actually process absolute mountains of information with relatively little computational power. Furthermore the process in the video is supposed to be something that should be in quantum computing's wheelhouse.

Well it's still about 10k AUD for a single bitcoin, so hardly worthless.

But it is heading down, nothing compared to December last year though, so...

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
a reply to: Riffrafter
which is why i stipulated 5 years minimum.
One of the major problems will be related to the number of qbits needed to fix/correct for noise, and that number isn't in the hundreds but the thousands. This should put it about 10 years out as of now (Using Moore's law as a rough estimate) given Google is using 54 qbits, and doubling every 2 years puts the number in the thousands 10 years from now.

I do admit to having some hang ups on these actually using superstates in the first place, but those hangups would be accounted for with aforesaid number of qbits.


Also here is a "classical" approach to a system using a single GPU that could parse yottabytes of information through compression... in 2015
www.youtube.com...

Basically if you have really specialized way of throwing out un-needed data, or only highlighting the important information to process, you can actually process absolute mountains of information with relatively little computational power. Furthermore the process in the video is supposed to be something that should be in quantum computing's wheelhouse.

I'm going to watch the video now.

Great information - thanks!

a reply to: dfnj2015

Worthless? Idk if I’d call something worth 7k a piece worthless.

No.

There's at least 50 times since bitcoin was created that people have declared it dead.


Still around.

It is so early in this market it isn't even funny.

Edit:

Qcomputing isn't going to kill bitcoin. Quantum resistance is something that is being worked on now.