Post-Quantum Investing: Dump Crypto for Index Funds and Real Estate?
post by G (g-1) · 2024-12-11T11:59:11.062Z · LW · GW · 5 commentsContents
5 comments
I'll keep this short.
- Google’s Willow quantum chip significantly outpaces current supercomputers, solving tasks in minutes that would otherwise take billions of years.
- Hypothesis: Accelerating advancements in tech and AI could lead to quantum supremacy arriving sooner than the 2030s, contrary to expert predictions.
- Legacy banking systems, being centralized, could transition faster to post-quantum-safe encryption by freezing transfers, re-checking processes, and migrating to new protocols in a controlled manner.
- Decentralized cryptocurrencies face bigger challenges:
- Hard forks are difficult to coordinate across a decentralized network.
- Transitioning to quantum-safe algorithms could lead to longer transaction signatures and significantly higher fees, eroding trust in the system.
- If quantum computers compromise current cryptography, tangible assets (e.g., real estate, stock indices) may retain more value compared to digital assets like crypto.
Thoughts?
5 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by interstice · 2024-12-11T17:15:42.655Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't see how your first bullet point is much evidence for the second, unless you have reason to believe that the Willow chip has a level of performance much greater than experts predicted at this point in time.
Replies from: g-1↑ comment by G (g-1) · 2024-12-11T23:23:57.562Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I meant extrapolating developments in the future.
Replies from: interstice↑ comment by interstice · 2024-12-12T03:00:13.711Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The question is how we should extrapolate, and in particular if we should extrapolate faster than experts currently predict. You would need to show that Willow represents unusually fast progress relative to expert predictions. It's not enough to say that it seems very impressive.
Replies from: g-1↑ comment by G (g-1) · 2024-12-12T06:09:36.700Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I extrapolate faster, because experts were wrong about AGI "after 2050" and they were wrong about predicting explosive growth of Bitcoin. In general they are usually too conservative, so odds are experts will be wrong about quantum supremacy as well.
comment by Bernhard · 2024-12-12T08:24:56.041Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Google is skilled at marketing. The only other new information is that they were able to prove that error correction capability scales faster than errors when adding 'physical' qubits. They use about hundred 'physical'qubits to emulate a single (error corrected) 'logical' qubit.
So once they are able to scale up from N=1 to something like 256, they will be able to do what you say.
Importantly, before that happens, let's say for N=100, they will be able to simulate the behavior of chemical systems composed of 100 atoms. This is a huge thing, and your will hear about it long before they reach bigger numbers.
Scaling this number is not trivial. You should read about for example dilution regrigerators, and how to transmit a room temperature signal to ultra low temperature circuits. And then do that for tens of thousands of signal lines, (all currently done by hand).