The silent answer to the quantum crisis

Original by Nic Carter

This post is part of our special coverage Syria Protests 2011

Other OrganiserThe enigma of the Chinese deaf identity remains unresolved. On 8 April, the New York Times sent a further letter identifying Adam Back or the founder of Bitcoin, triggering extensive discussions. Nic Carter's submission refutes the fact that the report lacks solid evidence and is not sufficiently substantiated. He went from a quantum security crisis to a point of view: Long silence may mean that the early high-risk bitcoin is no longer alive if the Chinese are alive. The paper is well-articulated and controversial, and the relevant technical judgements and inferences represent the author ' s position only for the reader ' s consideration。

The New York Times thinks Adam Back is the middle-heart. The analysis was based on the fact that Back was an inventor of Hashcash, a community member of the code punk community, and had linguistic similarities with the founders of Bitcoin. However, the article does not provide any new evidence of substance. The coverage was disappointing for a highly qualified journalist, John Carreyrou, who had been exposed to the scandal of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos。

Back was a very big show, while building up a sense of goodwill in the Bitcoin community, while obfuscating the existence of a link to the middle ear -- a practice that almost all those suspected of being the middle eye would do。

This article does not in any way shake my opinion: Back is not a smart man. The threshold for proving such an identity was extremely high, and the New York Times was largely unable to produce valid evidence. Artificial metrology analysis can be easily manipulated to draw false conclusions, and the newspaper does not carry out rigorous statistical research, but simply stays in the grammatical and spelling surface patterns. I have my own conjectures about the bright identity of Chinese and I believe that artificial intelligence may soon solve this mystery, but this report is clearly not the answer。

I believe that, as the mega-linguistic models continue to progress, they will eventually be identified through metrology, which is likely to occur in the coming years。

Why would anyone want to consider himself a smart New York Times journalist? It is left to the reader to think for himself. No reasonable person would expect the public to believe that they secretly hold $120 billion worth of digital bearer assets。

And I have another more crucial reason to question the claim that Back is the middle man。

IF CHUNG IS STILL ALIVE TODAY, HE HAS A MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE BIGGEST HAZARD LEFT BY BITCOIN: ABOUT 1.7 MILLION BITCOINS ARE EXPOSED IN THE FORM OF P2PK, WHICH COULD BE STOLEN BY QUANTUM COMPUTERS AT ANY TIME。

It needs to be clear that a quantum computer that is sufficiently powerful can reverse the encryption of public and private keys. According to the latest paper by Google and Caltech, this is less difficult than previously thought, with a quantum computer of just 26 million Quantum bits, which could be decrypted in a few days. To this end, both Google and Cloudflare have set 2029 as the deadline for the full upgrade of the quantum code, and the United States Government has asked key agencies to complete preparations by 2030. There is general agreement among industry authorities that quantum threats will become a real problem in the near future。

As Quantum Threat Day approaches, I expect the Bitcoin community to advance encryption so that the address cannot be decrypted by quantum computers. Almost all Bitcoin holders will need to transfer assets to secure addresses using new encryption schemes in the coming decade or so. But the problem follows:

THE ADDRESSES OF CHINESE AND EARLY MINERS CONTAIN MILLIONS OF BITCOIN, WHICH ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED LOST OR ABANDONED. OF THESE, ABOUT 1.7 MILLION BITCOIN WORTH ABOUT $12 BILLION WERE STORED IN AN OLD P2PK ADDRESS AND THE PUBLIC KEY WAS COMPLETELY EXPOSED. THIS MEANS THAT ANYONE WITH ENOUGH POWER TO CALCULATE A COMPUTER CAN REVERSE THE KEY AND SEIZE THE ASSETS. THIS WOULD HAVE CAUSED A SUDDEN INFLUX OF BITCOIN SUPPLIES INTO THE MARKET, WHICH WOULD HAVE HAD A DEVASTATING IMPACT ON CURRENCY PRICES。

Unfortunately, bitcoin from these old addresses could not be moved to a safer new format because of the loss of key, abandonment or death of some of the early participants. As a result, about 1.7 million bitcoins will be permanently exposed to the risk of quantum attack, and the decryptors will have almost unlimited time to break the address。

Of course, Bitcoin developers can propose software upgrades, prohibiting expenditure from such old addresses and thus permanently freezing these assets. However, there is no precedent in the history of Bitcoin, which by its very nature amounts to the confiscation of user funds and is strongly opposed by Bitcoin culture. I therefore believe that such a freezing programme is largely unlikely to land. Once implemented, the core feature of Bitcoin's adherence to property rights, the unmistakable rules of currency issuance, will no longer exist。

It's going around Central. He's the only one who can really crack this mess. He may transfer his own bitcoin to a safer new address or, if he does not claim it, to a destruction site, which would completely render the assets unusable, thereby eliminating market hazards and maintaining anonymity throughout the process。

THAT IS WHY I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MID-HEARING PROBABILITY IS NO LONGER ALIVE. UNLESS THE DEVELOPERS TAKE EXTREME MEASURES TO FREEZE NEARLY 10% OF THE SUPPLY OF BITCOIN, ONLY THE CHINESE CAN SOLVE THE QUANTUM SECURITY RISKS OF BITCOIN. IF HE WERE STILL ALIVE, HE WOULD HAVE HANDLED BITCOIN IN THESE P2PK ADDRESSES WITH A STRONG SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY, EITHER MOVING OR DESTROYING. EVEN IF HE WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO ACCESS THOSE ASSETS, HE COULD PROVE HIS IDENTITY ENTIRELY THROUGH OLD DOCUMENTS, MAIL, IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS, ETC。

As early as 2010, he was involved in discussions about the quantum risk of the Bitcoin encryption system, and he was aware of that. At that time, he took it easy, saying that bitcoin would simply have to replace the encryption algorithm if necessary。

Fifteen years later, quantum calculations have developed at a rapid pace, and the next decade is likely to pose a real threat to the currency。

That is why the New York Times considers Back to be a smart man, totally untenable here. It is not the Back lack of qualifications and capacity, but the fact that mid-middle-heart, with a bitcoin in mind, is bound to put a lot of pressure on solving the growing problem of the fragile assets of quantum. It is hard to believe that Chinese minds will stand by bitcoin in danger。

So I finally conclude: China is no longer with us. We need him more than ever, and he has not responded。