Related:

Discussion on the Google one,

Safeguarding cryptocurrency by disclosing quantum vulnerabilities responsibly

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47582418

Here's hoping that my stock for D-Wave ends up being worth something.

Quantum computing seems super cool, but I've been a little skeptical of it actually ever yielding anything useful. I would love to be wrong, it seems neat, and I have read through a few books on the subject and played with simulators, so I'm not completely talking out of my ass here, but quantum as a whole has kind of felt like vaporware to me.

As I said, I have stock in D-Wave, obviously it would be in my best interest for quantum to end up as cool as it seems.

Can quantum computing do even basic math yet? I think this was the holdup. Or perhaps I'm missing the point.

One thing I find rather amazing about all of this is the degree to which the Bitcoin community has tried, for years, to claim that quantum computers will be another other than a complete break.

Sure, it takes a pretty nice quantum computer or a pretty good algorithm or a degree of malice on the part of miners to break pay-to-script-hash if your wallet has the right properties, but that seems like a pretty weak excuse for the fact that the entire scheme is broken, completely, by QC.

Does there even exist a credible post-quantum proof protocol that could be used to “rescue” P2SH wallets?

Maybe it's a good time to start promoting my 5 year old, lightweight, hand-crafted, battle-tested, quantum-resistant blockchain: https://capitalisk.com/

It's about 5000 lines of custom code. Crypto signature library written from scratch.

So does BTC need to hard fork? Good luck getting to a consensus again ...