It's been proposed that [cryptocurrency] is a good tag for discussions about Wiesner's protocol and other quantum monies. I'm OK with it, but I'm wondering if there would be something better?

The security of cryptocurrencies is, in general, derived from a distributed consensus of the trusted "longest chain" of a ledger. Bitcoin and others famously require a proof-of-work to generate the longest ledger, which is based on the presumed difficulty of inverting a cryptographic hash.

The security of quantum money schemes, going all the way back to Wiesner, are derived from some version of the no-cloning theorem, which is based on the presumed linearity of quantum mechanics.

At first blush, they seem different. Hybrid systems are being envisioned, wherein the serial number of a quantum coin is put onto a classical distributed ledger, etc., but, as far as I can tell, the development of quantum moneys has mostly been on a separate intellectual path from that of cryptocurrencies, maybe only recently merging. (There's a footnote to Bitcoin in Aaronson and Christiano, which came out at about the same time).

Furthermore, the ECDSA system underlying the accounting of Bitcoin is insecure under a quantum computer over Shor, while the SHA256 "proof-of-work" system has not been shown to be insecure under a quantum computer. Thus, the perennial question about quantum computers and Bitcoin security is not a question about quantum money, ala Wiesner.

The mouse-over for [cryptocurrency] reminds askers to focus on "quantum" aspects. Also, a tag for [cryptocurrency] might encourage spammers?

If there are questions unique to Wiesner's scheme, or Aaonson and Christiano or FGHLS, is [cryptocurrency] still the best tag for now?

| |
  • $\begingroup$ quantum-money & quantum-cryptocurrency both seem like valid tags $\endgroup$ – user820789 Jul 13 '18 at 5:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .