CRYPTOCURRENCIES

Intro: Bitcoin et al are increasingly becoming more insecure – and not just because of price volatility

In Robert Harris’s The Second Sleep, the novelist imagines a world hundreds of years in the future where humanity has regressed to a medieval standard of living, population, and way of thinking.

Towards the end of the book, we learn what might have caused this calamity: not a pandemic, meteorite strike, or nuclear war, but a complete collapse in the digital economy.

From payment systems to Just-In-Time supply chains and the wealth of machinery that sustains us, the modern economy is almost wholly dependent on digital instruction.

If everything went down all at the same time, a state of anarchy would rapidly establish itself. In the ensuing chaos, it would be every man for himself with likely devastating consequences for lives and civilisation more widely.

It is hard to imagine what combination of circumstances might completely and lastingly disable the digital economy. However, cyber threats are very much a real, present, and fast increasing danger.

You only need to look at what happened to Jaguar Land Rover last year to see the dire consequences when firewalls are breached. It closed the UK automotive company down for more than a month.

Growing resources and time are being devoted to further securing these systems in more or less every walk of life – a prime example of the diseconomies of technology if ever there was one – and not least in the wild-west world of cryptocurrencies, wholly dependent as they are on complex encryption to safeguard value and assign ownership rights. The threat posed to these assets by advances and developments in quantum computing has long been a main topic of debate in the Bitcoin community. The issue has recently gone viral after being raised in Christopher Wood’s much-followed Greed and Fear investment newsletter.

As the head of equity strategy at the investment bank Jefferies, Wood points out that deriving a public key from a private key is computationally simple. Bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrency rely for their security on the assumption that the reverse operation would take trillions of years, even for a sophisticated supercomputer. But as Wood says, “This asymmetry collapses with the arrival of cryptographically relevant quantum computers, potentially reducing the time to derive a private key from a public key to mere hours or days.”

The launch by Microsoft of the Majorana One quantum chip may have accelerated so-called “Q-Day” – the date when quantum computers become powerful enough to break most current public-key encryption – by several years. A report published early last summer by Chaincode Labs estimated that up to 50pc of all Bitcoins in circulation (four to 10 million of them) could be vulnerable to theft, with reused addresses and “Satoshi-era” wallets thought to be the most exposed. These were named after Bitcoin’s anonymous founder.

They call Bitcoin “digital gold”. A better description might be fool’s gold, for the whole construct depends crucially on a constantly expanding pool of demand.

Once that demand stabilises or falls then the whole store-of-value illusion begins to collapse. Whether the threat from quantum computing is real or not, it’s giving plenty of pause for thought. It also appears to be quite seriously damaging attempts by Donald Trump’s White House to normalise crypto as a respectable asset class.

BlackRock flagged quantum computing as a key risk when launching its iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF last year while El Salvador, the first country to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, has seen fit to split its reserves of the virtual currency between 14 different addresses as insurance against potential theft.

Wood himself was an early convert to crypto, but he appears to have lost the faith, reallocating the entire 10pc of his synthetic portfolio once occupied by Bitcoin to physical gold and gold-mining stocks.

Not that you need to crack the encryption code to steal Bitcoin. Contrary to the sales pitch, cryptocurrencies are already one of the most insecure forms of money around – and not just because their price is so volatile.

North Korean hackers managed to swipe $1.5bn (£1.1bn) from the crypto exchange Bybit in February last year. For the year as a whole, a total of $3.5bn of Bitcoin is reckoned to have been stolen. Particularly vulnerable are those who brag acclaim about their crypto wealth on social media: extortion or kidnap can quickly follow.

And because the whole purpose of crypto is to be free of government oversight and interference, it makes the funds virtually impossible to recover once a wallet has been opened and drained by someone else.

In any case, some quite extreme solutions to the quantum threat have been proposed, including simply burning the vulnerable coins in an attempt to preserve the currency’s underlying integrity.

Extreme, yes, and also a root-and-branch betrayal of individual property rights – a bit like telling half of all sterling account holders that their money had been cancelled. In such circumstances, the pound would never be trusted again.

It is not just crypto that is at risk from quantum computing. The entire payments system, which is similarly just numbers on a computer screen, would also be exposed.

Harris’s imagined societal collapse in his novel may not be as fanciful as it seems.

From its early origins in Caesar’s cipher, encryption has been a constantly evolving and improving form of security. Maybe money, both crypto and fiat, can indeed be made quantum resilient.

But there is no compelling answer to the quantum threat yet and the two underlying forces that have sustained Bitcoin and its mini-mes from the start – worries about debasement of fiat currencies and the appeal of self-custody – will lose their value if it turns out your wallet can be easily stolen. There has never been an exact correlation between the price of Bitcoin and that of gold but up until the past several days, the two seemed to have completely decoupled, with the gold price surging ahead over the past year but Bitcoin flat or falling.

Digital gold it is not, and that’s possibly got something to do with the threat posed by quantum computing.

Despite enthusiastic backing from the Trump White House, crypto has so far failed to achieve the credibility among institutional investors that promoters were hoping.

For all its faults, fiat currency – backed by the taxpayer and underwritten by the central bank – continues to be a more secure form of money than the snake oil of a decentralised ledger.

Like almost everything else, crypto has become part of the culture wars divide, such that true believers are far more likely to be on the American Right than the Left.

Yet, any hopes Trump might have had of enriching himself, his backers, and his supporters by fully embracing the crypto revolution have so far proved misplaced.

Recent falls have wiped out the entirety of the gains seen under Trump’s swashbuckling, deregulatory agenda. It’s not the end of the world – but nor is it the reinvention of money once promised or hoped for.