[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.

[drawkbox]

I completely disagree with your limited focus take on this, aside from the main point of the comment, and you still are not taking into account what others are saying which I shared.

You are very focused on "winning" rather than the topic of concentration in currencies in the digital space, whether those keys are found, solved or some future system or hole is able to break them.

Good debate but I feel you were debating and shadowboxing yourself mostly, some side point that I guess you "won". I answered all your questions and provided sources on them to back them up. You still refuse to acknowledge.

Can the keys be broken now? No. Will they? According to you... NEVER!

Since you still won't answer these questions for our future observers, I take it you think they will never be broken.

Let's get you on record...

Do you think encryption methods today will hold up over time 100%? According to you YES!

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

Ok, glad to get you on record. I work on probabilities and that we don't know all parts, is there a probability that these keys will one day be broken, YES. A high probability, with lots of time, YES. Even higher if the values of these early coins/keys are multiples of what they are today, YES.

We can agree to disagree on this point without you going into ad hominems again on some side point. Where there is loot and prizes, some will be very motivated to find a way to get at those keys, either finding them, finding holes in tools used to make the keys or with lots of time, break the algorithms or brute force them.

I work in games and no matter how well you hide things, players will find the holes. It is actually quite amazing when you see it. Never underestimate the human with tools and intel/tracks. I am sure you will misinterpret this but it is true.

[CyberDildonics]

is there a probability that these keys will one day be broken, YES. A high probability, with lots of time, YES. Even higher if the values of these early coins/keys are multiples of what they are today, YES.

Again, this is you repeating your claim. Repeating your claim isn't evidence. You haven't given any numbers, explanations, information from expert cryptographers or any external links at all.

Do you understand what evidence is?

[drawkbox]

You fail to acknowledge again. We already agreed to disagree on that point. We are getting your take on things now.

Answer these, 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)?

Do you understand what diversion from the point is?

Do you think Satoshi is Nick Szabo?

You won't eventhough these are very easy YES/NO questions.

C'mon, put your money where your mouth is.

[CyberDildonics]

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

There is no evidence that it won't. If you have some, link it.

I'm fascinated that you don't seem to understand what evidence is.