Quantum hacking.

There are a few things about quantum computing that I wanted to post here for a long time already. Then today I saw Ivan on Tech with this video:

and I thought this really needs some clarification.

Quantum Computing
Let’s first briefly explore quantum computing. This has become a buzz word, much like AI, and people ascribe all kind of magical properties to it.
Quantum computing is based on super-positions and quantum entanglement, so let’s look at those two first.

Super positions
In our daily reality things, objects, animals, plants, people are in one particular state at each moment. For example, I am either sitting or standing, but I can never do both at the same time.
An animal is either alive or dead, but can not possibly be both at the same time.
The light in my room is either on or off, etc. etc. you get the point.
Modern scientists, trapped in their math and deranged from reality, have concluded that on sub-atomic scale things are entirely different. Electrons, for example, can be in two different states at the same time, in fact, a single electron can be in two different locations at the same time.
The same goes for photons which are theorized massless particles.
The thing is, these sub-atomic and theorized particles always are in many possible states and locations until we do a measurement on them. The measurement forces the particle into one single state and one particular location. And even that within certain limits.

Quantum entanglement
This is a real gem. Suppose inside a house there is a man and a woman and they always leave the house at the same time but in opposite direction. If the man exits from the front door, the woman takes the back door and vice versa.
So, by watching the front door I know what happens at the back door, because these two events are somehow related/connected/entangled.
If I see a woman exiting the front door, then I know there is a man exiting the back door.
No magic here, but now let’s have a look at our quantum friends.
A very similar situation can be created in certain atoms, that always emit two photons (light particles) at the same time; one red and one green in opposite direction.
So, if I put this atom halfway between Alice and Bob, then every time when Alice receives a red photon, she knows that Bob got a green one.
But remember now that every unobserved photon is in a super position, so when Alice receives a photon it is both green and red at the same time. Only if she looks at it, she forces it into a single state, either red or green. But this also means that Bob received a photon in super position, both red and green at the same time. And if either Alice or Bob looks at her/his photon she/he forces that photon in a single state but at the same time the other photon is forced in the other state.
For example; Alice looks at her photon forcing it into the green state, then at the same time she forces Bob’s photon into the red state.
No matter how far Alice and Bob are separated, the very instant either one looks at his/her photon both photons are forced into a single and opposite state. This is called quantum entanglement, and it comes with an unsolvable problem, namely how do these photons communicate?
For if one is forced into the green state the other one is immediately forced into the red state, so how does the other photon know what state to get into?

The obvious solution
The observant reader may have noticed a tinge of disbelieve in my writing, and yes, he is right. I do not support this theory of super positions etc. The obvious solution to the above “unsolvable problem” is that there are no super-positions. The one photon was always red and the other always green and there is no need to communicate these states. But of course there is a reason why our scientists have come to this ludicrous idea and well, to keep this short, let me just say that I think they misinterpret certain experimental results, and also the abandonment of the ether complicates matters enormously.
Yet, let’s go along with our scientific friends for now and see where their road leads us.

Faster than light communication
Many people have tried to use quantum entanglement as a means of communication. Unfortunately that is entirely impossible. Last time I checked all scientists agreed on this. That is why I am surprised to frequently see papers and articles emerging from people who say they want to use this for long distance, non-wiretap-able, faster than light communication. It simply can not be done. It would go against the very foundations of physics as we know it, it would go against causality. We have to draw a line somewhere. Really, this can not be done.

Back to computing
Today’s computing consists of performing operations on bits. A bit can be in 2 states; “0” or “1”. Bits are combined in bytes or groups thereof and they are given some meaning; for example a number or a text. We tell the computer how to process these bytes and how we want to see the result.
Quantum computing is entirely different. First, it uses q-bits (quantum bits) instead of ordinary bits. And these q-bits can be in a super-position, so they can be “0” and “1” at the same time. As usual, when we measure its state, it will be forced to become either a “0” or “1”. Second, a quantum computer does not process information, it does not “execute a program” as we are used to.
We don’t need to tell the computer what to do, instead we need to tell it what a correct answer would look like, or how we would evaluate its answer.
You could visualize all possible outcomes as a field and what you need to do is to raise the undesirable areas and lower the desirable areas. Then switching the computer on, is like throwing a marble on this field. This marble will roll to a low point in the area, but not necessarily the lowest and thus provide you with an answer.
But as it is not necessarily the lowest point, it is not necessarily the best solution. It doesn’t even have to be a good solution. That is the best way to visualize what a quantum computer does.

Quantum hacking encryption
When it comes to breaking encryption a traditional computer would have to consider trillions of trillions possible keys, something that is simply not feasible. But if you could describe the landscape of all possible keys in some way, then a quantum computer could very quickly give you a key worth trying. As the quantum computer does not necessarily give you a working key, you may have to ask it a million times to give you a key and maybe it will give you a key that works.

Defining the landscape
So the difficulty is now how to define the landscape of trillions of trillions of keys in such a way that the quantum computer has a reasonable chance of producing a working key, and that is far from trivial. With the SHA256 algorithm it may take years or even decades before someone will be able to do this, but maybe a cleverly designed AI program could help here.
With other algorithms and especially combined algorithms (such as X11 and X13) I think it is impossible. In other words, those algorithms are “quantum resistant”.

Back to reality
As I already said, I do not believe in the underlying principles of quantum computing and so, I do not believe a real quantum computer, such as originally theorized, will ever see the light. At this time D-wave and IBM are saying that they are building quantum computers and they are both also saying that what the other party does is not “real” quantum computing, as both parties are doing something very different.
Funny….

So SHA256 will not get quantum hacked
No… it will get “quantum” hacked. In fact it is already hacked.
Just imagine that you are head of a secret service (let’s call it the NSA) and you want to develop a secret encryption method. You know from the very start that at some point others will start using it to encrypt things that you may be interested in. So what would you do? Exactly, you would build in a back-door, and keep that secret key somewhere very secret. Also you would design a version with a different back door for your own top-secret communications. So that even if the back door key would ever get public, your top-secrets remain secret.
This is just basic logic. Nothing quantum, nothing AI, nothing magic.
So would this back-door exist?
If I dive in the code I find this:

var K = [
0x428A2F98, 0x71374491, 0xB5C0FBCF, 0xE9B5DBA5,
0x3956C25B, 0x59F111F1, 0x923F82A4, 0xAB1C5ED5,
0xD807AA98, 0x12835B01, 0x243185BE, 0x550C7DC3,
0x72BE5D74, 0x80DEB1FE, 0x9BDC06A7, 0xC19BF174,
0xE49B69C1, 0xEFBE4786, 0x0FC19DC6, 0x240CA1CC,
0x2DE92C6F, 0x4A7484AA, 0x5CB0A9DC, 0x76F988DA,
0x983E5152, 0xA831C66D, 0xB00327C8, 0xBF597FC7,
0xC6E00BF3, 0xD5A79147, 0x06CA6351, 0x14292967,
0x27B70A85, 0x2E1B2138, 0x4D2C6DFC, 0x53380D13,
0x650A7354, 0x766A0ABB, 0x81C2C92E, 0x92722C85,
0xA2BFE8A1, 0xA81A664B, 0xC24B8B70, 0xC76C51A3,
0xD192E819, 0xD6990624, 0xF40E3585, 0x106AA070,
0x19A4C116, 0x1E376C08, 0x2748774C, 0x34B0BCB5,
0x391C0CB3, 0x4ED8AA4A, 0x5B9CCA4F, 0x682E6FF3,
0x748F82EE, 0x78A5636F, 0x84C87814, 0x8CC70208,
0x90BEFFFA, 0xA4506CEB, 0xBEF9A3F7, 0xC67178F2
]

and

this._a = 0x6a09e667
this._b = 0xbb67ae85
this._c = 0x3c6ef372
this._d = 0xa54ff53a
this._e = 0x510e527f
this._f = 0x9b05688c
this._g = 0x1f83d9ab
this._h = 0x5be0cd19

Many strange parameters… Although at this point I can not prove anything, I find this very, very, suspicious.

Well that concludes my thoughts on the subject. What are yours?

Sort:  

That is the article that Ivan also mentions in his video. I see 2 flaws in it:
1 - it assumes quantum entanglement is usable as a means for communication while there is tons of proof that that can not be done.
2 - it assumes that the blockchain itself is the vulnerable part. I strongly disagree here. It is exceedingly difficult to change the blockchain, even if you would have a working quantum computer. It is MUCH easier to generate a private key for an address from the rich list (yet today's computers are entirely inadequate to even attempt such a thing)

All I can say is "Woow!!!" . This amazing post makes my head aches :)

Shall I add a paracetamol warning on my next post?

Good work @mage00000 !!!

That is really really best post for us.

To be honest you are WAY over my head, but this part I get: Scientists making shit up when they come across something they cannot explain...
I am reassured by your assessment though. At least I know what I do not know, and the threats of quantum hacking we worrisome to me as I am BRAND new to cryptocurrency.
And just a fun fact... the speed of light is not constant. Look into it. The bastards made it a "constant" for convenience. There is an Electric Universe scientist who dug up old text books from the early 1900s and they had a different "constant." I ca't seem to find that video right now, but even mainstream science is admitting it these days. https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html

Modern science is deranged. They still try to patch things up with entirely illogical and even contradicting theories. The only advice I could give when it comes to crypto's is to stay away from currencies that rely on the SHA256 algorithm, i.e. BTC.
On the speed of light issue, did you read this post of mine. It is about variations in epsilon naught, which implies variations in the speed of light. Thanks for your link, though! :)

Have you done any posts on what's wrong with the SHA256 algorithm @mage00000 ?

As far as science is related, I think it's very similar to what cryptocurrency is like, in the sense that we don't know everything. All we know is what's socially accepted so far in the community, and all we see are the results of experiments (with the effort to be as objective as possible, with peers reviewing our experiments with their own expertise, the flaw there is the limitation to knowledge of the various parties, which can't be solved unless we invent time travel and have the ability to look into the future and realize which presumptions were wrong and which novel theories survive the test of time). But at the same time science and concurrency both help in taking the world forward, and likewise can be used to cause a lot of mayhem and destruction (depending on who uses them with what intentions).

This is the only post, I think, in which I touch on the SHA256 algorithm.

You are right about science. No, you are mostly right. There are things in modern science that are evidently wrong but are accepted because we can not think of a better alternative or we just haven't found a better alternative or there is a better alternative but we chose to ignore it. For example, do you know how we have concluded that the Earth's inner core is of iron and nickel while there is really no way this can be verified.
Well;

  • the Earth has a magnetic field and iron and nickel can be magnetized. Which is a false argument since any electric conducting medium can be magnetized.
  • Iron and Nickel are elements most commonly found in meteorites. This is actually a reason why people have decided that the Earth's core must be made up of these elements, but I completely fail to see the connection.

Thus there are many generally accepted "facts" which have an extremely thin proof.

I can't believe that I took something like that for granted without questioning it. The second I read your response I had a flashback to science class in high school, and thought about how we take so many facts for granted without questioning what's being taught to us.

It reminds me of a great book by Bill Bryson, it's called A short history of nearly everything. The intro starts with him wondering about the oceans as he gazes at them through the window of an airplane and questions that he asked as a kid in class that were never properly answered, and he ends up writing a book that talks about the advent of Scientific thought and goes on to discuss major scientific breakthroughs till date (or like 2010 maybe, cant remember).

And I completely agree with you, inductive reasoning can sometimes be flawed, but in terms of rational thought it's still one of the best methods that we have to come to conclusions, albeit they're sometimes way off from the truth.

Will check out the post, I have not seen it! And thanks for the crypto-tip!

You can make a good professor. I would be happy to attend the class lol

Thank you for getting this out. @mage00000

The capabilities of quantum computing have already been proven by factoring primes. Check out this article showing the highest number factored with a quantum computer and shor's algorithm. Shor's algorithm can be used to break RSA encryption, the only thing we are lacking is a quantum computer with 256+ bits.

So will everything break when quantum computers have more bits and are widely accessible? There are already solutions proposed that make blockchains and other technologies relying on encryption "quantum-proof" so I think we will be fine.

While it is possible that there is a back-door is SHA, I find it very unlikely. The algorithm is open source and reviewed by academic communities who have looked for back-doors. Those "strange parameters" are probably large primes that the algorithm needs to simulate randomness in a deterministic way. Check out this video if you want to learn more about how SHA works.

And while I agree that it is easy to be skeptical of quantum mechanics while living in the macro world, there is enough science to convince me of the quantum nature of our reality. So why aren't we, as macro objects, effected by quantum mechanics? I heard it explained like this. Quantum objects are flying around in superposition until they are measured. A measurement could be a collision with a photon or other particle. The reason that macro objects are not subjected to the uncertainty of the quantum world is that we are constantly being measured. Think about how many photons are bouncing off you at this instant then thank the photons for your certainty.

Thoughts?

Thanks for your thoughts.
I have read the article that you linked and it only proves to me that they try to fool us. The Shor's algorithms that they have run relied on knowing the outcome in advance. That doesn't prove much about quantum computing at all, does it? The new algorithm that they mention looks better, and I would have to read up on it before I can comment on it.
I know there is a lot of "quantum evidence", but it can not convince me. If a theory comes with unsolvable paradoxes, then for me that is proof that this theory is wrong. Period. They need to retrace their steps and find where they diverged from reality. And I believe there are a few such moments in historical science.
The fact that a theory predicts correct results does not mean that the theory itself is correct. An example of that you will find in Bohr's model of the atom, with electrons flying around a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons. It is a beautiful model and it explains a lot, but it is not a correct model. And everyone in the science community is aware of that.
The same goes for QM. It is probably the best that we have, but it can not possibly be correct.
On SHA256: I know what those parameters are for, but I find it more than likely that they are chosen in such a way that they provide a back door. As the algorithm is quite complex (in tossing around the bits) I can understand that finding this back door for an outsider will be extremely difficult.

Hello my friend,

Once again, regrets that I did not find this article during the "upvote" window.

I have shared your skepticism regarding crypto algorithms for many years. Have you ever encountered a fellow calling himself the "Crypto-Maverick?" He published an interesting book some years ago questioning the reliability of the public key encryption systems and speculating that they all have back doors.

One of the "proofs" he offered for that conjecture is the anecdotal evidence that when he posted certain comments and questions on usenet crypto groups, he was met with utter silence...

In any case, are there any crypto algorithms that you trust, particularly in the cryptocurrency area? It is quite distressing to me to think that my greatest potential store of wealth in BTC is ultimately vulnerable...

The only provably secure encryption method that I know of and can actually understand and/or write a proof for is, of course, the Vernam Cipher also known as the "One-Time Pad."

Thanks for another great article.

😄😇😄

@creatr

No problem. I always appreciate your replies, with or w/o upvote.
"Crypto-Maverick" does ring a bell, but I do not recall how and what and why.
Concerning your concerns, I think you must always diversify. I am not putting my money in BTC and not just for this reason, but also because I have my doubts about where it came from (who is Satoshi?). Saver crypto's are those that use chained encryption, such as X11 and X13. Which is -in a way- also diversification; not going with just one method.
Outside of crypto's I believe in silver. Especially silver coins of 1 oz (but not the eagle - too many fakes going round). I also have a few 1 kg silver coins, but I fear they will be harder to trade when I need it.
I do not trust gold, which is funny in a way, because I also don't trust its cryptographic counterpart.

Also funny that you mention the Vernam Cipher because I have written a program that uses this algorithm (combined with a few minor tricks to further confuse the possible attacker), which I use for anything that I want to encrypt. It can take any jpeg file and uses its pixel data as key. If you're interested I can send you the source.

I've known of the Vernam Cipher since reading about it in Scientific American way back in the early '80s... And I've written several implementations of it in code.

I'm of course interested in what you've done with jpegs, but (based entirely on your very brief description) my comment would be that as I understand one time pads, the only security is in the randomness of the keys. Thus I wouldn't expect a jpeg of any "real image" to be sufficiently random to be trusted.

I think metals are a good store of value, at least up until we can regularly mine the asteroids at a reasonable cost. ;)

I have found (in the past) at least partial copies of the Crypto Maverick's book on http://archive.org... If I come across that again I'll send you a link.

Thanks for your comprehensive reply, my friend! How is your big Tesla project coming along these days?

Here is my version. Watch the comKey() routine that selects just the compressed pixel data, which is quite random, I think. Also there is some other trickery to mislead the attackers.
The lab is being prepared for testing again. (starting last weekend as the rain season is finally over :) )
I'll do a short post on the cleaning up and preparing, soon.

Thanks for the code listing.

I look forward to your post on the lab progress. ;)

Great work

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.20
TRX 0.13
JST 0.030
BTC 61521.43
ETH 3387.82
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.49