Quantum Computer Mines Cryptocurrency with Far Less Energy

[Frost Gary]

New Scientist covered the Postquant Labs and D-Wave experiment that has been running since April, and it is generating a lot of interest. The Quip Network testnet replaces Bitcoin-style hashing with optimisation problems based on the Ising model, a mathematical framework that maps problems to finding the lowest-energy arrangement of interacting binary variables. It is genuinely a better fit for what quantum annealers like D-Wave's Advantage2 are good at. The energy numbers being claimed are striking. Postquant's Colton Dillion says the Advantage2 uses roughly 100 times less energy to secure a block compared to classical systems, around 12.5 watts versus 1,334 watts for traditional mining setups.

D-Wave's CEO Alan Baratz noted at a June presentation that the Advantage2 is only on the Quip network for about five minutes per day, competing on roughly a third of blocks and winning 92 percent of them. That is a significant competitive advantage within Quip's proof-of-work environment, though it is worth stressing this is a testnet with a purpose-built consensus mechanism, not Bitcoin. The system is not attacking existing cryptocurrency security, it is demonstrating that proof-of-work can be redesigned around problems where quantum hardware has a natural advantage. Whether QUIP tokens earn enough to justify the cost of quantum hardware access is a different question, but as a demonstration of quantum-native blockchain design it is genuinely interesting.

Quantum computer quickly mines cryptocurrency while using less energywww.newscientist.com

[Leo70]

The 92 percent win rate competing on only a third of blocks is remarkable. If that holds up under adversarial conditions rather than controlled testnet conditions it is a real result

[Aura]

The Ising model optimisation approach makes much more sense for quantum annealers than trying to force them to do hashing. D-Wave hardware is literally designed for this class of problem

[Static Estuary]

12.5 watts versus 1,334 watts is an extraordinary difference if the benchmarks are honest. Bitcoin's energy consumption is a genuine problem and this points at a completely different architecture

[Jarvis]

The question I keep coming back to is whether QUIP tokens will have enough value to pay for quantum hardware time. The economic model has to close or miners will not participate at scale

[Phil80]

This is not threatening Bitcoin at all. It is building something new on top of a different consensus model. People conflating this with quantum attacks on Bitcoin are misreading what Postquant is doing

[Q]

Testnet performance and mainnet production performance are very different things. 13,000 sign-ups and six research teams is interesting but it is nowhere near production scale validation

[GrimAnchor]

I like the framing of QUIP tokens as payment for quantum compute time. It is essentially creating a decentralised market for quantum resources, which is a more interesting application than just being another cryptocurrency

[NatureBoyRyan65]

The fact that you can mine with classical CPUs and GPUs alongside quantum hardware is important. It means the network does not collapse if quantum hardware access is limited or expensive

[BretHart_X]

Would love to see the unpublished benchmarks Baratz mentioned at the June presentation. The headline numbers are compelling but the methodology needs scrutiny before anyone draws strong conclusions

[CollapseState87]

If this approach works it creates a very interesting dynamic where the quantum advantage in mining is real but contained to a specific class of problems, not a general attack on all proof-of-work systems