Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor

azure.microsoft.com

161–170 of 200 posts

Re: Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor

#161
post #38

Are these actually even useful yet? Genuine question. I never managed to solicit and answer, only long explanations which seemed to have an answer of yes and no at the same time depending on who you observe.

They can fundamentally break most asymmetric encryption, which is a good thing iff you want to do things that require forging signatures. Things like jailbreaks Apple can't patch, decryption tools that can break all E2E encryption, being able to easily steal your neighbor's Facebook login at the coffee shop... Come to think of it, maybe we shouldn't invent quantum computers[0]. [0] Yes, even with the upside of perman…

No you can't. Largest factored number using shor's algorithm is 21. No other algorithm scales to crypto levels.

Re: Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully not, besides quantum physics simulations the only problems they solve are the ones that should remain unsolved if we're to trust the integrity of existing systems. As soon as the first practical quantum computer is made available, so much recorded TLS encrypted data is gonna get turned into plain text, probably destroying millions of people's lives. I hope everyone working in quantum research is aware of wh…

This got me wondering how much of Tor, i2p, etc the NSA has archived. Or privacy coins like XMR. I'm also curious. If you don't capture the key exchange but instead only a piece of cypher text. Is there a lower limit to the sample size required to attack the key? It feels like there must be.

Afaik AES is not vulnerable to any kind of statistical methods nor quantum decryption, so you'd have to capture the key exchange. Not that it makes the situation all that much better.

Re: Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim/hope is that topological qubits are fault tolerant or at least suffer from much lower errors (very roughly you can think of topological qubits as an error correction code built of the atoms, ie on scale of Avogadro's number). If, for example they could build a single qubit even with 10^-6 error rates that would in fact put them __ahead__ of all other attempts at the path to fault tolerance (but no NISQ). It…

I understand the claim and what they are trying to do (and they've been trying to do it for 20 years now). It's an interesting approach and it is orthogonal enough from other efforts that it is absolutely worthwhile to pursue scientifically (I'm in an adjacent field in condensed matter physics). But they are doing a full court press in the media (professionally produced talking head videos, NYT articles/other media,…

That's fair, and I don't like their marketing too (and others too, look how the reviewers pushed back on misleading claims in the paper). I was talking specifically on Majoranas being behind sc/trapped ions/cold atoms. If they manage to make 1 and 2 qubit gates and it will have good error rates in couple of years (and that's a big if), they'll be approximately where for example Google is expected to be. And the question what will be easier to scale is very unclear and will decide who wins eventually

Re: Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor

#164
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please someone give input on this. It's extremely important and worrying.

If this is genuinely worrying to you, take some solace in that post-quantum alternatives are undergoing standardization and implementation right now (Signal and iMessage, for example, have already deployed some PQC, as have others). However, this announcement is a nothing-burger. As I mentioned down-thread, you should view any QC announcement/press-release with extreme skepticism unless it includes replicable (read:…

Would it be smartest for one to sell crypto right now while normies are still oblivious of what's about to happen?

Re: Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor

#165
post #112

So when does this break crypto and Bitcoin and how to best prepare for this? Is there any way to secure at all?

If you can break bitcoin, you can also break all the encryption we use for banking and other transactions, so might as well stock up on SPAM and ammo.

It's an on issue, since bank can always switch to face-in-face verification. This is not an argument. Crypto is the problem here.

Re: Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor

#166

My first scan parsed that as "Marijuana 1 quantum processor". Very high performance ...

Argghhhh.

I rue the day that I decided to play the game of "What word is Majorana 1 similar to?"

Cuz, and I know the armchair psychoanalysts will have a field day, this is what my mind pieced together...

    Major ana*1  (remove the asterisk and treat the one like an ell)
Now I can't unsee it. Sigh.

Re: Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor

#167
post #112

So when does this break crypto and Bitcoin and how to best prepare for this? Is there any way to secure at all?

Cryptocoins like Bitcoin only need DSA. Quantum-proof DSAs have been widely known since the 1970s*. Bitcoin only needs to change its DSA - and then everything will be fine.

* see Lamport signatures

Re: Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor

#168
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is genuinely worrying to you, take some solace in that post-quantum alternatives are undergoing standardization and implementation right now (Signal and iMessage, for example, have already deployed some PQC, as have others). However, this announcement is a nothing-burger. As I mentioned down-thread, you should view any QC announcement/press-release with extreme skepticism unless it includes replicable (read:…

Would it be smartest for one to sell crypto right now while normies are still oblivious of what's about to happen?

No. Crypto will be safe against quantum computers.

Re: Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor

#169
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can fundamentally break most asymmetric encryption, which is a good thing iff you want to do things that require forging signatures. Things like jailbreaks Apple can't patch, decryption tools that can break all E2E encryption, being able to easily steal your neighbor's Facebook login at the coffee shop... Come to think of it, maybe we shouldn't invent quantum computers[0]. [0] Yes, even with the upside of perman…

No you can't. Largest factored number using shor's algorithm is 21. No other algorithm scales to crypto levels.

You can't use shor's algorithm with current quantum computers.

But if we were to get bigger and better quantum computers, we should use shor's algorithm. And that would, in fact, break the crypto behind HTTPS, SSH, smard-cards, and effectively all other forms of asymmetric crypto that are in use.

There is a question how likely bigger and better quantum computers are. A decent case can be made that it is unlikely they will grow fast. But it is going to far to say that shor's algorithm is useless because current quantum computers aren't good enough. You can't dismiss the possibility of quantum computer growth out of hand.

Re: Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor

#170
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have other things you want to provide that your self-proclaimed ignorance would be helpful with?

Lay people are welcome to read about the latest developments in science. They're also welcome to try to intuit theories related to those latest developments. It's a good way to flex your thinking skills. Experts are then welcome to weigh in on those intuitions and steer them along the right path. Even if you're completely wrong, expressing how you think about things is also helpful to others in case they also have si…

I know this is a day later and I don't expect it to be read, but I wanted to come back to this because it ultimately was an unusual experience and I spent some time reflecting on it. It was unusual because both the clear rejection of the original post now in light grey, but also for the significant support via upvotes for my response. I'll admit it was unambiguously into the realm of the unkind (I encourage you not to ignore this admission), but I wanted to pick apart why that response was solicited for social reasons (leaving technical reasons aside) and why your response is unwarranted and harmful.

I don't have a fundamental problem with lay people commenting or discussing technical topics and this venue is somewhat built around that. I do have a problem when they go beyond reasonable limits. Those limits include unreasonable, unresearched, poorly thought out, and nonsensical statements. The social problem is that the statement was made in an authoritative way that was derogatory to the fundamental premise of the topic (trying to sounds like a good way to ). This type of statement can be correct, however it requires a significant amount of weight behind it to be credible given the context and history of this topic. The original poster then follows with an admission of ignorance about what they just posited. Even the ordering of these (rejection then admission) makes it more offensive to a reader who is here for anything more meaningful. This was not a statement that was made for inquisition, clearly not a statement that showed research or thought, it borders into a blind repetition of words that might be used in this context, and shows no toneful humility given their position and context. I don't believe this type of commenting should be encouraged.

The positive reinforcement I received, though, comes from an opposing school of thought you can think of as "master has hit me with a stick and I must meditate." Students typically don't like this as it is uncomfortable at best and can easily be carried into abuse. I reject the notion that this means it should never be applied and in a measured and thoughtful way it can be constructive. It unambiguously carried a lesson to be learned and the nature of that lesson makes it memorable. Without endorsement, one can say the world is a harsh place and learning to accept social rejection, humiliation, and mockery as a consequence of failure to put thought into public statements is an important and useful lesson. This place is pretty low stakes to learn such a lesson given the anonymity.

I will argue your defense of this and active encouragement of low value comments is what is actually harmful to the community. Blanket labeling of any behavior you find disagreeable as "toxic" (hyberbolically so, if you truly think that is the most toxic comment ever on here, you have not spent any real amount of time in this venue) is a common misunderstanding that all negative behavior is bad. Conflict, while uncomfortable can have positive outcomes. In the case of poor comments, a social way (constrasted with "leaving it to the mods") to deal with this is exactly what happened. And ultimately can improve the community through clear discouragement of unwanted behavior carrying the weight of emotional rejection.

If you still disagree with this, consider the community showed me support and I, while this absolutely could have been done differently (again I encourage you not to ignore that statement), think that's generally in the spirit of this forum to discourage inane comments. The success of this community is somewhat based on that and has also infamously earned its reputation for it. "Toxic" if you think about actual meaning of the word, poisoning or against the viability, would hurt the long term nature here. I believe in this case it does the opposite. It raises the average and it is what this place is built on (though usually more in the form of downvotes). I'd say your blind championing here is a case of "toxic positivity" and you can choose to do what you like with that. I would say if you do find this place so "toxic" I'd encourage you to not read the comments here, let alone respond to them, and perhaps go find someplace more agreeable to your particular sensibilities.

Post reply on HN