News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Quantum-secured blockchain by snakeanus on Saturday June 03, 2017 @07:35AM (#14475933)
> current blockchain platforms rely on digital signatures, which are vulnerable to attacks by means of quantum computers

There are many digital signature schemes (such as SIDH, New Hope, Lamport+Merkle, SPHINCS, etc) which are not vulnerable to any important quantum attacks.

Re:Quantum-secured blockchain by jessriedel on Saturday June 03, 2017 @07:49AM (#14475972)
Yea, it's baffling that the abstract doesn't mention post-quantum crypto and make some sort of argument that it's somehow not vastly easier to implement.
Re:Quantum-secured blockchain by tedeaton on Saturday June 03, 2017 @09:11AM (#14476228)
SIDH and New Hope are not signature schemes.
Re:Quantum-secured blockchain by andy_ppp on Saturday June 03, 2017 @12:11PM (#14477009)
How do they work? Are they just difficult to write quantum algorithms for or is there some fundamental mathematics involved that stops a quantum computer enumerating the solutions?
Re:Quantum-secured blockchain by contravariant on Saturday June 03, 2017 @09:08PM (#14479406)
To the best of my knowledge there's not even any known mathematical theorem that would prevent such algorithms on regular computers. I don't see how this would be any different for quantum computers.
Re:Quantum-secured blockchain by gizmo686 on Sunday June 04, 2017 @02:23AM (#14480139)
That is correct. Any proof that digital signatures are secure on classical computers would imply P != NP.

Further, it is known that BQP (bounded error quantum polynomial time. The quantum computer equivalent of P) is contained in PSPACE. However P=PSPACE is still an open question. This means that we still do not have any theoretical proof that quantum computers are more powerful that classical computers.