111–116 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't a qubyte be 8 qubits?
The term doesn't make sense because you're not going to use groups of 8 qubits to represent characters on a screen. We may actually need a new word for 2 qubits (dual-qubits? dubits?) because it seems 2 qubits are enough to break 1-bit of encryption, and I think I've read it's enough to simulate 1 atom, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But as they are analog devices, there are no errors with transistors There are manufacturing defects, there are inefficient designs, inefficient production methods, poor circuit designs (like using them in common base - not wrong depending on the situation - instead of common emitter)
every measurement has an error tolerance, starting with the uncertainty principle and including transistor manufaction.
So it's an error in the metrological sense but not in the defective sense
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SIDH ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersingular_isogeny_key_exch... ) is one of the few popular post-quantum variants of DH key exchange, and it supports forward secrecy as well.
One nice property of ECC pubkeys is that they easily fit into UDP packets, URIs and other very compact data structures. Currently all post-quantum schemes have fairly bulky pubkeys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PFS can slow it down a bit, but not much. Assuming before PFS everyone changed their keys every 3 years, and with PFS they change them every 2 weeks, then it should be about 80x harder (slower to break the encryption). 80x harder may seem like a lot but it's not that much in the context of quantum computers. Also, PFS uses 256-bit ECC, which only requires a 512-qubit quantum computer to break it. So it's possible tha…
> Also, PFS uses 256-bit ECC, which only requires a 512-qubit quantum computer to break it. Grover's algorithm is a quadratic, not exponential speedup. It may require 512 qubits, but it still requires 2^128 time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IBM has been awarded more patents per year than any other company for the last 24 years[1]. In 2016 alone, IBM published ~22 patents per day, and ended up being ~2500 patents ahead of Samsung (#2). [1]: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/51353.wss
Does that necessarily mean that is impressive?( I know it is, I am just asking for someone who may not understand what having that type of scale of IP enables a company to do.)