If, if quantum computers are so good at large fields, right? If that is, like, their specialty in linking public keys and, and private keys in large fields, like, why does hashing and why, why are we confident that hashing is, like, a significant deterrent to that?

Quantum computers are generally worse than classical computers, uh, at almost every problem, um, except for this very small set of problems that they've been shown to be, like, better than classical computers at.

And, uh, unfortunately, uh, one of those problems is, uh, uh, discrete logs, which, um, a lot of, uh, signature algorithms are based on, um, where they, uh, have a lot of mathematical structure.

Um, and this was great for, like, proving them and using them.

Um, and on classical computers, they're generally thought to be secure.

Um, but this mathematical structure is a problem that quantum computers just happen, in the very small number of, uh, problems that they are exceptionally good at, happen to be good at breaking.

Hash functions, uh, are often not mathematical in that sense.

... as a, a, yeah

I think that going from A to B is a lot more legally and socially complicated.

Yeah, I think that's really well said.

Um, and I, I do think that probably it is, uh, it would be a crime to steal, to steal bitcoins with a quantum computer.

Um, and I, I even for, say, like, uh, adversarial nation states that have this, um, the value of having a quantum computer for intelligence collection, um, and not revealing that you have it is so great that I think there is this sort of, like, social and political argument that probably quantum computers will exist in some people's hands for a while before they start breaking, breaking, um, uh, Bitcoin.

And then that starts seriously affecting the overall system throughput.

Yeah.

So I think that could be a problem.

Um, I'm, I'm, I'm less pessimistic on that a- uh, than you are.