-
On December 9, Google launched Willow, its quantum chip with a power of 105 qubits.
-
Other analysts, in agreement with Adam Back, understand that this risk would be distant.
The debate over advances in quantum computing and its potential impact on cryptography continues to generate reflections.
Recently, NoticiasVE reported that analysts have dismissed the theoretical risk that Google’s Willow quantum chip would represent for the security of Bitcoin (BTC) and other cryptographic systems, pointing out that current technology is far from reaching the capacity necessary to compromise them.
However, on December 14, 2024, Chamath Palihapitiya, an engineer and venture capitalist, expressed the possible future impact of Willow on the algorithm of hashing Bitcoin’s SHA-256, which is the basis of the security of this network.
According to his statement, it would take approximately 8,000 Willow-like chips of Google to compromise SHA-256.
He argued that “we are in a window of 2 to 5 years” for cryptocurrency networks to have to adopt algorithms. hash resistant to quantum computing.
The response to Chamath Palihapitiya was immediate
Hours later, Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstreams, attacked again regarding the current lack of a risk for BTC as a result of Google’s new quantum chip.
On this occasion, and in response to Palihapitiya’s statements, Back maintained in a publication in 1 or even 2 decades away.
“No, you can’t increase entangled qubits by connecting many 105-qubit chips. “We’re not even remotely close to having 1 million qubit computers this decade or probably the next either.”
Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstreams, a technology company linked to Bitcoin.
Back’s response refutes the idea of combining the power of multiple quantum computing chips to create a system with entangled qubits (in English, entangled qubits), that is, basic units of information connected in a large-scale quantum way.
Furthermore, he emphasizes that achieving a quantum machine with 1 million fully functional and entangled qubits is very far from current technology, probably more than 20 years away.
Following Adam Back’s response, another X user asked the Blockstreams co-founder “how many qubits do you think would pose a threat to Bitcoin private keys?”
To answer that question, Adam turned to what, according to him, experts on this topic say.
«Millions of completely entangled physical qubits, is what quantum computing experts say. So we are 5 orders of magnitude away. And at the rate of progress of the last 25 years, about 50 years away.”
Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstreams, a technology company linked to Bitcoin.
The claim that “we are 5 orders of magnitude away from reaching that capacity” means that the power being measured at Willow is much less than what is required to put the security of Bitcoin at risk.
In mathematical terms, an “order of magnitude” refers to a factor of 10. So when it is said that we are 5 orders of magnitude below, we are talking about a difference of 10 to the power of 5 (10⁵), which is equal to 100,000.
In this case, according to Adam, the Willow chip would have a capacity of 100,000 times below the level required to break the BTC encryption.
However, Back left room for the possibility of disruptive technological advances that accelerate that progress.
“Now, if something changes, like a technological advancement, that would be interesting. So this is just for context.”
Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstreams, a technology company linked to Bitcoin.
More opinions that doubt the current potency of Willow
Another analyst, under the pseudonym De Facto Monk in far from compromising Bitcoin security.
As he explained, creating a quantum computer capable of breaking the SHA-256 algorithm or Bitcoin’s private keys would require investing billions of dollars in a computer containing millions of completely entangled qubits.
In the analyst’s opinion, the nature of quantum calculations and current technical limitations make improbable que Willowor any other similar quantum technology, represents a practical threat to the Bitcoin network in the short or medium term.
Additionally, the person who expressed a position similar to those of Adam and De Facto Monk, but a little more cautious regarding the future, was the bitcoiner analyst David Battaglia.
“In the long term, this (quantum computing) could become a threat, which is why it is crucial that Bitcoin evolves into a post-quantum scheme before such technology becomes available.”
David Battaglia, Bitcoin analyst.
In conclusion, as previously reported by NoticiasVE, Adam’s new responses and opinions of specialists, the risk that Willow and quantum computing endanger Bitcoin cryptography would remain theoretical.