[CyberDildonics]

Most of the time when someone says 'we don't know' they really are talking about themselves.

People do know. There has been 100 years of cryptography and there are billions at stake. Hand waving and saying 'anything can happen in the future' with no plan, no details, no facts and no evidence is basically tech astrology.

Here's a challenge - find a cryptography expert that agrees with you.

[drawkbox]

> find a cryptography expert that agrees with you

Do you think they'd be biased to answer in a certain way?

Additionally every cryptography expert know the system is only as good as the keys not being found, and that can come from other means not just breaking the algorithm or brute force... it can be how the key was created and what tool was used.

With time all encryption will be broken, we may be gone by then but maybe something comes along that changes the game. History is filled with leaps that were not expected. The early keys will get weaker and weaker over time, that is fact.

In any case, you are focusing on the wrong thing. I was talking about this concerned about the contentration in currency as the problem, not necessarily the encryption/key.

[CyberDildonics]

Do you think they'd be biased to answer in a certain way?

What are you even talking about? You are already accusing a theoretical cryptography expert of being "biased" against you? Do you think that might mean what you're saying isn't rooted in reality?

Additionally every cryptography expert know the system is only as good as the keys not being found,

That isn't what is being talked about here, isn't what I replied to and isn't what your claims were. Now you keep trying to shift the goal posts to something else instead of confronting that what you said before was absurd.

With time all encryption will be broken,

Prove it. Actual experts do not say this. Why do you keep repeating this with zero evidence? Repeating your claims over and over doesn't make them any less ridiculous.

In any case, you are focusing on the wrong thing

No, I'm responding to things you said and you keep trying to distract from them instead of admitting there is no evidence for what you said.

More than anything, I'm fascinated when someone makes an outrageous claim, someone gives them evidence that it is completely false, they give zero evidence that backs it up, yet they dig in, repeat their claim, distract from it and try everything to not just admit they don't actually know what they're saying.

[drawkbox]

This was my main point "Bitcoin, and other crypto in general even more with higher concentration of early owners, will always be precarious because of this concentration. Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties."

> You are already accusing a theoretical cryptography expert of being "biased" against you?

What are you talking about? Cryptographers would be biased to their field, like yourself, about their system being incapable of being broken. It isn't just about breaking algorithms...

However some are even talking we have to start worrying about advancements by 2030-2040

[When a Quantum Computer Is Able to Break Our Encryption, It Won't Be a Secret](https://www.rand.org/blog/2023/09/when-a-quantum-computer-is...)

"One of the most important quantum computing algorithms, known as Shor's algorithm, would allow a large-scale quantum computer to quickly break essentially all of the encryption systems that are currently used to secure internet traffic against interception"

[The NIST has a "Post-Quantum Cryptography" Project](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Post-Quantum-Cryptography)

[Waiting for quantum computing](https://techbeacon.com/security/waiting-quantum-computing-wh...)

"Large universal quantum computers could break several popular public-key cryptography (PKC) systems, such as RSA and Diffie-Hellman, but that will not end encryption and privacy as we know it."

"The most widely used PKC systems, including RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and ECDSA, rely on the intractability of integer factorization and discrete log problems. These problems are hard for classical computers to solve, but easy for quantum computers."

"This means that as soon as a large-scale universal quantum computer is built, you will not be able to rely on the security of any scheme based on these problems."

"To quantify the security of cryptosystems, "bits of security" are used. You can think of this as a function of the number of steps needed to crack a system by the most efficient attack. A system with 112 bits of security would take 2112 steps to crack, which would take the best computers available today billions of years. Algorithms approved by NIST provide at least 112 bits of security."

"AES-128 and RSA-2048 both provide adequate security against classical attacks, but not against quantum attacks. Doubling the AES key length to 256 results in an acceptable 128 bits of security, while increasing the RSA key by more than a factor of 7.5 has little effect against quantum attacks."

"When large-scale universal quantum computers are built, you will still be able to securely use symmetric encryption algorithms, but not the systems like RSA and Diffie-Hellman. These PKC systems are widely used today to create digital signatures or to securely transmit symmetric encryption keys."

"Fortunately, there are several families of quantum-resistant PKC systems: Lattice-based, code-based, hash-based, isogeny-based, and multivariate systems. NIST's Report on Post-Quantum Cryptography describes each of these families."

Encryption will still exist with more compute and new systems but it will evolve. That doesn't mean keys of the past will that aren't updated.

> Additionally every cryptography expert know the system is only as good as the keys not being found,

I like how you cut out that sentence to disregard the context...

The rest is "and that can come from other means not just breaking the algorithm or brute force... it can be how the key was created and what tool was used."

> Actual experts do not say this. Why do you keep repeating this with zero evidence?

Again let's get the full quote not the biased selective clip you made for you context "With time all encryption will be broken, we may be gone by then but maybe something comes along that changes the game. History is filled with leaps that were not expected. The early keys will get weaker and weaker over time, that is fact."

If you have a problem with that statement you have a problem.

I gave examples you brushed off. You can agree to disagree but historically most crypto either is broken or has trapdoors for export even, so you don't need to break the algorithms, you might just need info on the tools. Try using any non approved encryption algorithm for communicating with defense/military, you'll get a visit from the FBI.

> More than anything, I'm fascinated when someone makes an outrageous claim, someone gives them evidence that it is completely false, they give zero evidence that backs it up, yet they dig in, repeat their claim, distract from it and try everything to not just admit they don't actually know what they're saying.

I am fascinated as well when someone entirely disregards the point of the post and tries to tell others they know everything. I even said it might take longer than lifetimes or the universe even to break the algorithms, yet you still can't get past that point. Quite fascinating indeed.

> No, I'm responding to things you said and you keep trying to distract from them instead of admitting there is no evidence for what you said.

No I already alluded to the time situation, it doesn't matter much in the main point of my comment.

The concentration of currency in digital currencies is a problem and makes people that own that leveragable or too powerful.

The longer it takes to find/break the keys the more the value will be worth potentially...

Yes that is my entire point. You just laser focused in on cryptographic algorithms and not all the things around it. The first sentence of my first comment was a bit salacious but a lead in to the dangers of concentration in currency, and the power people have, or want to take, of the early owners.

Yes I do believe cryptographers know that not all tools and keys will stand the test of time, especially keys made in 2008... just as cyber security people know even with the best security there is always dependency holes, social engineering, and tools that can be trojan horses.

The point was, of my comment, not shifting goal posts, the concentration in digital currency is a problem and is an even bigger problem with large swaths of it in keys out there floating around, either found physically or other means.

You seem a bit combative, you are starting in with the selective context clipping so let's just agree to disagree on the rest. You have been successful in completely derailing the main point... if that was your goal, Good job!

[CyberDildonics]

Think about what you're saying for a second. You made specific claims that I copied and pasted and keep repeating them with zero evidence. You have admitted and demonstrated you don't know anything about cryptography.

Instead of deferring to experts who spend huge amounts of time researching how to weaken cryptography you claim they all must be biased and ignore your conclusion (based on nothing) that all cryptography will be broken in the future by computers that don't exist (that you also don't know anything about).

This is conspiracy level thinking.

Bitcoin's encryption is elliptical curve. It was chosen specifically because of all the stuff you copied and pasted. That has been known for multiple decades. Researchers have entire academic careers based around writing papers and going to conferences trying to find the smallest theoretical weaknesses in any algorithm out there.

Stop trying to deflect and let go of the conspiracy theories of trying to make your conclusion first and then hallucinate rationalizations.

[drawkbox]

Now you are into ad hominems. You are completely lost. You can't acknowledge the topic nor the point of concentration in currency, which was 80% percent of my entire point. You are shadowboxing and really have that strawman on the ropes.

Nice job distracting from the OP even about concentration and early owners of Bitcoin.

> Bitcoin's encryption is elliptical curve.

Did you just learn this? The point is processing power at quantum level already starts to threaten some of the encryption methods and early keys are definitely at risk over time. Additionally there is motive to find holes in early tools that someone could unlock all that lost bitcoin... over time.

Did you ignore everything like this?

"AES-128 and RSA-2048 both provide adequate security against classical attacks, but not against quantum attacks. Doubling the AES key length to 256 results in an acceptable 128 bits of security, while increasing the RSA key by more than a factor of 7.5 has little effect against quantum attacks."

Since you are so singular focused, combative, and black and white on this. Since you don't adhere to future probabilities over time and unknowns, you seem like you fully think today's encryption will never be broken by advancements in decades or longer, as cryptographers fear could happen which I just shared with you, even programs at NIST regarding research on this.

Let's get you on record...

Do you think encryption methods today will hold up over time 100%?

Do you think early bitcoin keys from 2008 will never be broken (disregarding tools and being found which is more likely)?

See if you can contain yourself to what topic you wanted to talk about and double down on your take, answer the questions.

That wasn't even the point but let's get this for future generations to giggle at.

[CyberDildonics]

Now you are into ad hominems.

This is a classic playbook of people who keep claiming something with no evidence. They try to divert to something else and they try the "I don't like how you're saying it" move.

Pointing out that you have no idea what you're talking about is not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be something irrelevant to the topic like "you're fat so you don't know about cryptography".

The point is processing power at quantum level already starts to threaten some of the encryption methods and early keys are definitely at risk over time

You have grossly misunderstood (again). Quantum computers haven't threatened anything new.

AES was first proposed 26 years ago and has never been broken. Quantum computers only reduce the theoretical key lengths. This has been known for multiple decades and is why key lengths have been increased. Again, it has never been cracked, 256 bit keys have been used just for a theoretical time decades or centuries in the future with no clear path to get there.

Bitcoin's private key length is 256 bits.

https://cryptobook.nakov.com/asymmetric-key-ciphers/elliptic...

There is zero evidence to back up what you are saying. There are no cryptography experts that agree with what you're saying. It is just you making something up.

If you have any evidence at all, go ahead and link it.