Please provide specific details as others have said - this comment just sounds like you just had something vaguely related to security that you wanted to mention.
There's an entire field of research dedicated to figuring out what we'll replace those algorithms with if quantum computing does become practical on a significant scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
The gist of the parent post is, create complex systems and these things will bite.
Yes. Something you don't know about can and may well kill you. These are the lessons of geography, astronomy, and physics. Crypto and computer security may well have the same properties.
"In the comments section of the Antonoupolos’s talk, reddit user @cfromknecht explains that there are flaws to the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), and it is very possible that quantum computers will be able to work faster than the transactions, therefore beating the encryption. “Whenever you spend bitcoins, you must include a signature that approves the spend, which is done using ECDSA” they explain, “If these signatures can be broken faster than transactions can be confirmed, an attacker could sign a different transaction that spends your coins before the original transaction is ever accepted.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_m...
Seriously though, I'm talking about something qualitative here. When I read about these side-channel attacks yesterday I had this crazy gut feeling about how exposed our technologies are to those who learn to understand them deeply.
There's an complementary kind of arrogance to the one you're suggested: "anything I don't understand couldn't possibly be a threat... since I could never easily exploit it, it'd be way too hard for someone else to."
But have you listened to the radiolab about the z-cash cryptography ritual? It's very enjoyable and has a spooky surprise ending:
This class of attack sits in that “uncanny valley” of:
1) possibly easy to spot when looked for in the right way [edit: to use the QC analogy: search for classical algorithms which are easily broken]
2) totally systemic across almost all currently deployed technology
is that what you mean?
I hope I don't offend anyone too badly here with this medical analogy, but it's like finding out you have a bad flu vs. finding out you have Parkinson's.
Or, it's like seeing someone in a different light for the first time... maybe you've known them for decades, but all of the sudden, you see them in this completely different way.
In contrast, even if we suddenly solved the engineering challanges of building a large quantum computer, it would likely take a while for the economics to work out where a quantum based attack would be economical. For one, for the foreseable future, quantom computers would be expensive (needing high cooling at a minimum), so a 'casual' attacker would need to wait for an economical rental type service to emerge. Also, it would take time to scale up production, so the first bunch of quantum computers will be expensive due to market pressures from big players.
In reality, it is likely that quantom computers would see a gradual (even if exponential) rise in power that would give some idea of a timeline for when we have to adapt. Not to mention the research into replacing quatom vulnerable crypto with quantom resistent crypto for over a decade, and has already led to (seemingly) quantom resistent replacements.
I'm imagining that the transition to quantum computing will come with growing pains of similar magnitude.
It's like when you turn the hot water on and run it over your hand. At first it's cold, gradually it gets warmer and warmer, then there's a moment when you pull your hand out... the water is suddenly too hot, it's crossed a threshold.
Save you some googling in case you wanted to see that: