Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Quantum computing bombshells that are not April Fools

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 118 posts

Re: Quantum computing bombshells that are not April Fools

#21

Post by qnleigh »

pmarreck wrote: post #5

Can quantum computing do even basic math yet? I think this was the holdup. Or perhaps I'm missing the point.

This is a good question, and currently the answer is no. Quantum computers can only run very short, simple algorithms right now, because the qubits they're built out of are noisy. You need a lot of error correction, which the community is working on.

The thing is, unlike ordinary computers, quantum computers can factor numbers about as easily as they can multiply them. So as soon as they can multiply two large integers, they'll also be able to factor the result and break RSA encryption based on keys of that size.

This blog post gives a good sense of the state of the art and what progress might look like:

Why haven't quantum computers factored 21 yet? https://algassert.com/post/2500

Re: Quantum computing bombshells that are not April Fools

#22

Post by qnleigh »

georgeburdell wrote: post #20
pmarreck wrote: post #5

Can quantum computing do even basic math yet? I think this was the holdup. Or perhaps I'm missing the point.

[flagged]

This comment is wildly inappropriate and violates the community guidelines here. I suggest you delete it.

Re: Quantum computing bombshells that are not April Fools

#23

Post by Mistletoe »

amluto wrote: post #6

One thing I find rather amazing about all of this is the degree to which the Bitcoin community has tried, for years, to claim that quantum computers will be another other than a complete break. Sure, it takes a pretty nice quantum computer or a pretty good algorithm or a degree of malice on the part of miners to break pay-to-script-hash if your wallet has the right properties, but that seems like a pretty weak excuse…

If Bitcoin is broken then your bank encryption and everything else is broken also.

As far as I know quantum computers still can't even honestly factor 7x3=21, so you are good. And the 5x3=15 is iffy about how honest that was either.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45082587

Bitcoin uses 256-bit encryption, it's a universe away from 5x3=15.

Re: Quantum computing bombshells that are not April Fools

#25

Post by freetonik »

I worked at a quantum computing company that builds superconducting QC chips (so, not really applicable to one of the “bombshells” from the article). My team was designing the software stack which allows to control the QC, run quantum jobs/algorithms, and calibrate the parameters.

I’ve made two attempts to explain the work we’ve been doing and to explain the current realistic state of the industry:

1. A talk at PyCon: https://youtu.be/tT1YLP5T71Y

2. A free ebook “ Quantum Computing For Software Engineers” https://leanpub.com/quantum-computing-for-software-engineers

The company I left a few months ago is planning its IPO this year. Like almost all other quantum companies, it’s gonna be a SPAC merger, not a pure IPO. Those traded companies mentioned in the other comments are mostly SPACs as well.

Re: Quantum computing bombshells that are not April Fools

#26

Post by Foobar8568 »

qnleigh wrote: post #21
pmarreck wrote: post #5

Can quantum computing do even basic math yet? I think this was the holdup. Or perhaps I'm missing the point.

This is a good question, and currently the answer is no. Quantum computers can only run very short, simple algorithms right now, because the qubits they're built out of are noisy. You need a lot of error correction, which the community is working on. The thing is, unlike ordinary computers, quantum computers can factor numbers about as easily as they can multiply them. So as soon as they can multiply two large intege…

And isn't the response already known in the validation process?

Re: Quantum computing bombshells that are not April Fools

#28

Post by socketcluster »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #10
socketcluster wrote: post #7

Maybe it's a good time to start promoting my 5 year old, lightweight, hand-crafted, battle-tested, quantum-resistant blockchain: https://capitalisk.com/ It's about 5000 lines of custom code. Crypto signature library written from scratch.

> Crypto signature library written from scratch. That's a sentence every white hat cryptography enthusiast loves to hear lol.

It's a very simple signature algorithm. They're welcome to try and crack it. If there is an issue with it, it shouldn't be hard to identify within those few hundred lines. Nobody found any issues in the last 5 years though.

Isn't it a good thing that there exists at least one blockchain in the world which isn't based on the same crypto library used by every other project? What if those handful of libraries have a backdoor? What if the narrative that "you shouldn't roll out your own crypto" is a psyop to get every project to depend on the same library in order to backdoor them all at once at some future date?

Strange how finance people always talk about hedging but in tech, nobody is hedging tech.

Re: Quantum computing bombshells that are not April Fools

#29

Post by qnleigh »

Foobar8568 wrote: post #26
qnleigh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good question, and currently the answer is no. Quantum computers can only run very short, simple algorithms right now, because the qubits they're built out of are noisy. You need a lot of error correction, which the community is working on. The thing is, unlike ordinary computers, quantum computers can factor numbers about as easily as they can multiply them. So as soon as they can multiply two large intege…

And isn't the response already known in the validation process?

I don't understand your question. Can you elaborate?

Re: Quantum computing bombshells that are not April Fools

#30

Post by int32_64 »

amluto wrote: post #6

One thing I find rather amazing about all of this is the degree to which the Bitcoin community has tried, for years, to claim that quantum computers will be another other than a complete break. Sure, it takes a pretty nice quantum computer or a pretty good algorithm or a degree of malice on the part of miners to break pay-to-script-hash if your wallet has the right properties, but that seems like a pretty weak excuse…

> the Bitcoin community has tried, for years, to claim that quantum computers will be another other than a complete break.

Who specifically is claiming this? Satoshi literally mentioned the need to upgrade if QC is viable on bitcointalk in 2010.

Post reply on HN