Is BitShares impervious to attacks by Quantum computers?

[puppies]

If some nefarious actor approached a majority of witnesses, then I'm sure at least one would speak up. 

[yvv]

They don't need a quantum computer to screw up bitshares. They just need to bribe the majority of witnesses. This wouldn't cost a lot.

+5% +5% +5%

Perhaps some people's principles aren't for sale as cheaply as yours?

Shareholders need to assess character as well as technical proficiency when  voting.

My principles are not for sale. I'm am not so sure about principles of people whom I don't know personally.

[onceuponatime]

They don't need a quantum computer to screw up bitshares. They just need to bribe the majority of witnesses. This wouldn't cost a lot.

+5% +5% +5%

Perhaps some people's principles aren't for sale as cheaply as yours?

Shareholders need to assess character as well as technical proficiency when  voting.

[Zapply]

They don't need a quantum computer to screw up bitshares. They just need to bribe the majority of witnesses. This wouldn't cost a lot.

+5% +5% +5%

[CLains]

worry not my friends for if worst comes to worst we can take matters into our own hands, living as we do in broad daylight, everything measured and accounted for, being as we are no strangers to snapshots, we'll weed out the shadows and unchain from evil, living reborn in the light of a new dawn

practically we follow the path trailed by our stealth, implementing what is best when others have proven it so

[kenCode]

If Bitcoin is vulnerable, then it doesn't really (yet) matter if Bitshares is, I think. Bitcoin would be attacked first, which would give us time to react

I don't think they would give a warning like that. With a Q attack, it would be on all fronts, all full nodes, all masternodes, including our witnesses imo.

[maqifrnswa]

The first Q computer was sold about four years ago.
Since then, we have Watson, D-wave, Qubit spinoffs, Google's Annealer, etc.

Call me paranoid, but all hell is breaking loose in the banking sector and I still have that uneasy feeling that we will be targeted, sooner rather than later. Hence my flames in the "number of witnesses" and "witness geo-diversity" threads.

Since IBM, Apple, ExxonMobil and others are now dabbling in the Q space, what's to stop them from flipping the switch on and wiping our witnesses out? Can we add a layer of PQCrypto (or something) for a stronger defense?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

the current implementation is not impervious, but there's nothing stopping bitshares from porting the blockchain to the quantum realm as well.

[yvv]

They don't need a quantum computer to screw up bitshares. They just need to bribe the majority of witnesses. This wouldn't cost a lot.

[Chronos]

If Bitcoin is vulnerable, then it doesn't really (yet) matter if Bitshares is, I think. Bitcoin would be attacked first, which would give us time to react.

You don't have to outrun the bear.  ;)

[kenCode]

The first Q computer was sold about four years ago.
Since then, we have Watson, D-wave, Qubit spinoffs, Google's Annealer, etc.

Call me paranoid, but all hell is breaking loose in the banking sector and I still have that uneasy feeling that we will be targeted, sooner rather than later. Hence my flames in the "number of witnesses" and "witness geo-diversity" threads.

Since IBM, Apple, ExxonMobil and others are now dabbling in the Q space, what's to stop them from flipping the switch on and wiping our witnesses out? Can we add a layer of PQCrypto (or something) for a stronger defense?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography