Conditions for advantageous quantum Bitcoin mining
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our aim is to determine conditions for quantum computing technology to give rise to security risks associated with quantum Bitcoin mining. Specifically, we determine the speed and energy efficiency a quantum computer needs to offer an advantage over classical mining. We analyze the setting in which the Bitcoin network is entirely classical except for a single quantum miner who has a small hash rate compared to that of the network. We develop a closed-form approximation for the probability that the quantum miner successfully mines a block, with this probability dependent on the number of Grover iterations the quantum miner applies before making a measurement. Next, we show that for a quantum miner that is “peaceful”, this success probability is maximized if the quantum miner applies Grover iterations for 16 minutes before measuring, which is surprising as the network mines blocks every 10 minutes on average. Using this optimal mining procedure, we show that the quantum miner outperforms a classical computer in efficiency (cost per block) if the condition Q < Crb is satisfied, where Q is the cost of a Grover iteration, C is the cost of a classical hash, r is the quantum miner's speed in Grover iterations per second, and b is a factor that attains its maximum if the quantum miner uses our optimal mining procedure. This condition lays the foundation for determining when quantum mining, and the known security risks associated with it, will arise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it