211–220 of 557 posts
In other words, get off the cloud so nobody has your encrypted data which they will be able to crack in a few minutes five or ten years from now?
Only asymmetric cryptography is threatened. There is no realistic threat to symmetric encryption like AES.
If you are encrypting your cloud data with ed25519 or RSA, then yes, a quantum computer could theoretically someday crack them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll remind you of the quote that started this thread: "Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?" In this context, your opinion and Deutsch's opinion don't matter. The question is about whether the idea is common in the field or not.
Okay. I just don't understand. Are you saying Quantum Computers are also implemented without assuming the computations run in parallel universe?
Quantum mechanics is a tool to calculate observable values, and this tool works very successfully without needing to make strong assumptions about the nature of the universe.
I’m a quantum dabbler so I’ll throw out an armchair reaction: this is a significant announcement. My memory is that 256 bit keys in non quantum resistant algos need something like 2500 qubits or so; and by that I mean generally useful programmable qubits. To show a bit over 100 qubits with stability, meaning the information survives a while, long enough to be read, and general enough to run some benchmarks on is some…
> AI and data security will be unalterably different if so Definitely agree with the latter, but do you have any sources on how quantum comphters make "AI" (i.e. matrix multiplication) faster?
I’m a quantum dabbler so I’ll throw out an armchair reaction: this is a significant announcement. My memory is that 256 bit keys in non quantum resistant algos need something like 2500 qubits or so; and by that I mean generally useful programmable qubits. To show a bit over 100 qubits with stability, meaning the information survives a while, long enough to be read, and general enough to run some benchmarks on is some…
> Worth spending a little time doing some long tail strategizing I’d say. Yup, like Bitcoin going to zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit after skimming arxiv preprint[1]: Yeah, this is pretty huge. They achieved the result with surface codes, which are general ECCs. The repetition code was used to further probe quantum ECC floor. "Just POC" likely doesn't do it justice. (Original comment): Also quantum dabbler (coincidentally dabbled in bitflip quantum error correction research). Skimmed the post/research blog. I believe the key point is the scal…
Google could put themselves and everyone else out of business if the algorithms that underpin our ability to do e-commerce and financial transactions can be defeated. Goodbye not just to Bitcoin, but also Visa, Stripe, Amazon shopping, ...
symmetric ciphers would have similar properties (AES, CHACHA20). Asymmetric encryption atm would use ECDH (which breaks) to generate a key for use with symmetric ciphers - Kyber provides a PQC KEM for this.
So, the situation isn't as bad. We're well positioned in cryptography to handle a PQC world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It performed a computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 1025 or 10 septillion years. If you want to write it out, it’s 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. If it's not, what would be your explanation for this significant improvement then?
Quantum computing can perform certain calculations much faster than classical computing in the same way classical computing can perform certain calculations much faster than an abacus
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree that it is "the best explanation we have". It's a nice theory, but like all theories in quantum foundations / interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is (at least currently) unfalsifiable. I didn't "assume" hype, I hypothesized it based on the evidence before me: There is nothing in Google's paper that deals with interpretations of quantum mechanics. This only appears in the blog post, with no evidence gi…
From what I understand, David Deutsch invented the idea of quantum computer as a way to test Parallel Universes. And later people went on and built the quantum computer. Are you saying that the implementation of a quantum computer does not require any kind of assumption on computations being run in parallel universes?