Breaking the private keys to the concentrated wallet(s) targeted not the entire systemThis doesn't make sense. I was talking about what it takes to brute force a single key.
but eventually over time compute does break encryption and keys made with those algos are no longer "secure".
This is not true. You are misunderstanding the orders of magnitude differences in modern encryption from some weak schemes of the past.
Are you suggesting as processing/compute increases, encryption doesn't get weaker from previous algorithms?
I don't think you understand what it means to need an entire universe of energy with the smallest unit of energy for computation and still have an astronomically small chance or brute forcing the keys.
The fact that some of the first algorithms used for unrelated purposes were weak has nothing to do with what you are claiming. Your logic is basically "some encryption from 40 years ago was weak, therefore all encryption is weak."
Encryption is a balance of compute/processing for encryption and decryption, too intense and the system is computationally too heavy.
The encryption and decryption speed is not a factor here.
So with that, over time all encryption will be able to be broken at some point following, as history has show so far.
This is completely wrong. You are extrapolating off of something isn't a pattern in the first place. No one thought triple DES would last forever. This is like someone saying 'we moved on from 32 bits of RAM addresses so we will eventually move off of 64 bit and 128 bit to 256 bits'. Orders of magnitude don't work that way. 32 bits gives you 4 gigabytes, 64 bits gives you 18 exabytes and 128 bits is enough to give an address to every bit of data ever created.
Your comment seems more like someone reading headlines and news articles instead of actually understanding what they are claiming.
This doesn't make sense. I was talking about what it takes to brute force a single key.
but eventually over time compute does break encryption and keys made with those algos are no longer "secure".
This is not true. You are misunderstanding the orders of magnitude differences in modern encryption from some weak schemes of the past.
Are you suggesting as processing/compute increases, encryption doesn't get weaker from previous algorithms?
I don't think you understand what it means to need an entire universe of energy with the smallest unit of energy for computation and still have an astronomically small chance or brute forcing the keys.
The fact that some of the first algorithms used for unrelated purposes were weak has nothing to do with what you are claiming. Your logic is basically "some encryption from 40 years ago was weak, therefore all encryption is weak."
Encryption is a balance of compute/processing for encryption and decryption, too intense and the system is computationally too heavy.
The encryption and decryption speed is not a factor here.
So with that, over time all encryption will be able to be broken at some point following, as history has show so far.
This is completely wrong. You are extrapolating off of something isn't a pattern in the first place. No one thought triple DES would last forever. This is like someone saying 'we moved on from 32 bits of RAM addresses so we will eventually move off of 64 bit and 128 bit to 256 bits'. Orders of magnitude don't work that way. 32 bits gives you 4 gigabytes, 64 bits gives you 18 exabytes and 128 bits is enough to give an address to every bit of data ever created.
Your comment seems more like someone reading headlines and news articles instead of actually understanding what they are claiming.