181–190 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's great funding for physics research. I don't care if it's useless, it beats spending on politics and surveillance
There's also the fact that the road to useful is littered with useless, because how else would you make progress?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you assume everyone else is wrong from the start, then you won't like the comments, sure. And what the hell are you calling a gish gallop? They wrote four sentences explaining a single simple argument. If you design a way to make qubits emulate particle interactions, that's a useful tool, but it's not what people normally think of as a "computer". And whatever you're saying about anyone claiming "all the science h…
The fact an earlier demo was an RNG also, and this demo uses quantum phenomena (qubits) to look at quantum phenomena (molecules) does not mean quantum computing can't be a useful computer, a la a wind tunnel. It's not that I don't "agree with it", there's nothing to agree with. "Not even wrong", in the Pauli sense. I'd advise that when you're conjuring thoughts in other people's heads to make them mean, so you can go…
I would be quite worried about advances in quantum computers if I had any Bitcoin after watching this DEFCON talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkVYJx1iLNs
Cryptocurrencies would be the last thing I worry about w.r.t Quantum crypto attacks. Everything would be broken. Think banks, brokerage accounts, email, text messages - everything.
I would be quite worried about advances in quantum computers if I had any Bitcoin after watching this DEFCON talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkVYJx1iLNs
Every time I mention quantum computing as a threat to crypto (which I have been for years), I get downvoted to oblivion. I guess we have a lot of HODLers here. A bet on crypto is a bet against quantum computing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you assume everyone else is wrong from the start, then you won't like the comments, sure. And what the hell are you calling a gish gallop? They wrote four sentences explaining a single simple argument. If you design a way to make qubits emulate particle interactions, that's a useful tool, but it's not what people normally think of as a "computer". And whatever you're saying about anyone claiming "all the science h…
The fact an earlier demo was an RNG also, and this demo uses quantum phenomena (qubits) to look at quantum phenomena (molecules) does not mean quantum computing can't be a useful computer, a la a wind tunnel. It's not that I don't "agree with it", there's nothing to agree with. "Not even wrong", in the Pauli sense. I'd advise that when you're conjuring thoughts in other people's heads to make them mean, so you can go…
But if that's the only realm where anything close to supremacy has been demonstrated, being skeptical and setting your standards higher is reasonable. Not at all "not even wrong".
> I'd advise that when you're conjuring thoughts in other people's heads
Are you accusing me of strawmanning? If you think people are being "not even wrong" then I didn't strawman you at all, I accurately described your position. Your strawman about science was the only one in this comment thread. And again there was no gish gallop, and I hope if nothing else you double check the definition of that term or something.
I think that quantum will be the next bubble
A part of me thinks quantum computing is mostly bullshit, but I would be very happy to be wrong. I should probably learn Q# or something just to be sure.
I would be quite worried about advances in quantum computers if I had any Bitcoin after watching this DEFCON talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkVYJx1iLNs
Every time I mention quantum computing as a threat to crypto (which I have been for years), I get downvoted to oblivion. I guess we have a lot of HODLers here. A bet on crypto is a bet against quantum computing.
Even so, I don't agree that quantum is a threat to crypto. There are already well known quantum-resistant encryption schemes being deployed live in browsers, today. Crypto can just start adopting one of these schemes today, and we're still probably decades away from a QC that can factor the kinds of primes that crypto security uses. The transition will be slightly more complex for proof of work schemes, since those typically have dedicated hardware - but other types of crypto coins can switch in months, most likely, if they decide to, at least by offering new wallet types or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the fact that the road to useful is littered with useless, because how else would you make progress?
You could do what evolution does, and require that every version be useful. But evolution seems to require an awful lot of trial and error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could do what evolution does, and require that every version be useful. But evolution seems to require an awful lot of trial and error.
Evolution requiring that every version is useful seems a (significant) oversimplification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> those all use ec by now anyway As far as i am aware, eliptic curve is also vulnerable to quantum attacks. The threat is generally both passive eavesdropping to decrypt later and also active MITM attacks. Both of course require the attacker to be in a position to eavesdrop. > Let’s say you crack the encryption key used in my bank between a java payment processing system and a database server. Well if you are sitting…
> Well if you are sitting in the right place on the network then you can. Not really. This would be if not instantly then when a batch goes for clearing or reconciliation, be caught -- and an investigation would be immediately started. There are safeguards against this kind of thing that can't be really defeated by breaking some crypto. We have to protect against malicious employees etc also. One can not simply inser…