1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A9CC0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:50:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE684EC5B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:50:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 5vn8MHbC18K3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:50:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [139.162.42.226])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 486764EC1D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:50:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian))
id 1lLxuP-0005l2-Q3; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:50:07 +1000
Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:50:01 +1000
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:50:01 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Karl-Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20210316005001.GA4304@erisian.com.au>
References: <202103152148.15477.luke@dashjr.org>
<a88cd471-fdc9-de35-86cd-595b387249c8@mattcorallo.com>
<CAD5xwhi82fjRB4Ceb6Gnp+LvTweWjwFRmWU5zD-3o6s_GoEvPw@mail.gmail.com>
<a4b9df55-b95b-9c95-62ea-7bf6eeec113d@mattcorallo.com>
<CALJw2w4hBk1pZrV7E6FNDPDCWH=T_S6qAHGKvRC6JsT9iZevfg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALJw2w4hBk1pZrV7E6FNDPDCWH=T_S6qAHGKvRC6JsT9iZevfg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] PSA: Taproot loss of quantum protections
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:50:13 -0000
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 08:01:47AM +0900, Karl-Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It may initially take months to break a single key.
From what I understand, the constraint on using quantum techniques to
break an ECC key is on the number of bits you can entangle and how long
you can keep them coherent -- but those are both essentially thresholds:
you can't use two quantum computers that support a lower number of bits
when you need a higher number, and you can't reuse the state you reached
after you collapsed halfway through to make the next run shorter.
I think that means having a break take a longer time means maintaining
the quantum state for longer, which is *harder* than having it happen
quicker...
So I think the only way you get it taking substantial amounts of time to
break a key is if your quantum attack works quickly but very unreliably:
maybe it takes a minute to reset, and every attempt only has probability
p of succeeding (ie, random probability of managing to maintain the
quantum state until completion of the dlog algorithm), so over t minutes
you end up with probability 1-(1-p)^t of success.
For 50% odds after 1 month with 1 minute per attempt, you'd need a 0.0016%
chance per attempt, for 50% odds after 1 day, you'd need 0.048% chance per
attempt. But those odds assume you've only got one QC making the attempts
-- if you've got 30, you can make a month's worth of attempts in a day;
if you scale up to 720, you can make a month's worth of attempts in an
hour, ie once you've got one, it's a fairly straightforward engineering
challenge at that point.
So a "slow" attack simply doesn't seem likely to me. YMMV, obviously.
Cheers,
aj
|
