the funny thing is that nobody will ever do that. The moment someone uses quantum computing or any other technology to crack bitcoin in a visible way, the coins they just gave to themselves become worthless because confidence collapses.
Well, they wouldn't go for the trillion dollar wale addresses.
They would hack random, long unused, dead addresses holding 5 figure amounts and slowly convert those to money. They would eventually start to significantly lower the value and eventually crash bitcoin if too greedy, but could get filthy rich.
In the 60's we actually had extremely capable, fully-developed computers. Advanced systems like the IBM System360 and CDC 6600.
Quantum computing is currently stuck somewhere in the 1800's, when a lot of the theory was still being worked out and few functional devices had even been constructed.
Oh no, that isn't factually correct. We have the theory. The theory is viable and provable and shown in both of the major branches of quantum computing, qubit and photonic. The key issue as I say is each has multiple 'architectures' for lack of a better term for each branch. We do have functional devices, it is just the function they provide is useless as we can already do it on a laptop. Which partially is a massive issue as Quantum computing almost needs to skip ahead of those development years classical computing was afforded.
tbh they could just be pushing for people to adopt newer, less-tested, weaker algorithms. switch from something battle-hardened to the QuantResist2000 algorithm which they've figured out how to break with lattice reduction and a couple of GPUs like those minecraft guys did.
Hybrid approaches are at least as strong as their strongest algorithm. You don't need to trust me on this, it's extremely simple to derive this principle yourself from basic knowledge of cryptography.
I will never get used to ECC meaning "Error Correcting Code" or "Elliptic Curve Cryptography." That said, this isn't unique to quantum expectations. Faster classical computers or better classical techniques could make various problems easier in the future.
The video is essentially an argument from the software side (ironically she thinks the hardware side is going pretty well). Even if the hardware wasn't so hard to build or scale, there are surprisingly few problems where quantum algorithms have turned out to be useful.
It is tough to beat classical computers. They work really well, and a huge amount of time (including some of mine) has gone into developing fast algorithms for them to do things they're not naturally fast at, such as quantum chemistry.
It's also possible that any such enunciation is being hallucinated from the text by the speech model.
AI models exist to make up bullshit that fills a gap. When you have a conversation with any LLM it's merely autocompleting the next few lines of what it thinks is a movie script.
