5 ms·

Honestly this is the first time that I hear this claim, and I cannot judge whether it is true or not (I will try to find out). What I know is that the money for

Honestly this is the first time that I hear this claim, and I cannot judge whether it is true or not (I will try to find out). What I know is that the money for the flagship projects was allocated around five years ago already (within the Horizon 2020 programme), and I am not aware of any relation to the European Cloud Initiative. The only mention of cloud computing at the conference was in the context of providing Quantum Computing capabilities over the cloud as a means to make these technologies accessible to a wider audience as soon as possible, as buying a quantum computer will probably be beyond the capabilities of most individuals / organizations for the foreseeable future.

nabla9 10y ago
€2 billion in Horizon 2020 funding will be allocated to the European Cloud Initiative[1]. Quantum manifesto lists many items that might be funded under the Cloud Initiative [2], - Core technology of quantum repeaters - Secure point-to-point quantum links - Quantum networks between distant cities - Quantum credit cards - Quantum repeaters with cryptography and eavesdropping detection - Secure Europe-wide internet merging quantum and classical communication - Universal quantum computers will be available with computational power at a level of performance that will exceed even the most powerful classical computers of the future. They will be reprogrammable machines used to solve demanding computational problems, such as optimisation tasks, database searches, machine learning and image recognition. They will contribute to Europe’s smart industry, helping to make European manufacturing industries more efficient. [1]: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1409_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1409_en.htm [2]: http://qurope.eu/system/files/u567/Quantum%20Manifesto.pdf http://qurope.eu/system/files/u567/Quantum%20Manifesto.pdf
- ThePhysicist 10y ago
  The question is whether the 1 Bn. € allocated to quantum computing would have been spent on other cloud technologies instead, which in my understanding is not the case. As far as my understanding goes the flagship money was distributed via an open propsal-based process, so I really don't see how this money was "stolen" from other initiatives, as the goal of this kind of funding is to let researchers compete for it by making convincing proposals.
  - nabla9 10y ago
    The way I see it the question is not that proposal based process itself was fair. The question is if the winning proposals made credible promises. Did the commission know it funded basic research without practical solutions in the sight, or did they read material like Quantum Manfiesto and thought there would be commercial and infrastructure benefits? I'm leaning towards Theories 2 and 3: stupidity and marketing. Physicists who want to build quantum devices made claims outside their expertise and the commission didn't consult experts to verify these claims because it generally has no idea of what it's funding.
    - ThePhysicist 10y ago
      You should not assume that the EU commission is stupid, as they have a large department which employs experts across many fields (mostly scientists as well) that informs policymakers about the risks and potential of these things. And concerning the potential risk of failure: Yes, everyone is aware of that. The flagship projects fund research, which means that there is a risk of failure and that we don't know all the details yet (otherwise it would be engineering). The funding bodies are fully aware of this and they do not expect that every project they fund will work out, but they know that today's research is tomorrow's revenue.
      - nabla9 10y ago
        DJB is one of the leading experts in the field. Who are the security experts who think that quantum communication premises could lead to practical implementations? Even if the base research is successful, most experts agree that quantum communication is solution searching for problem. We can already transmit data securely trough bit-pipes using quantum resistant symmetric ciphers. Actual security problems are on different level (protocols etc.)
        ThePhysicist 10y ago
        As far as practical implementations are concerned, the Chinese already have a running quantum network between large cities, and are planning to launch a "quantum satellite" in June as well. There are companies selling this kind of equipment already, e.g. ID Quantique, so this technology is already quite mature and working. I don't understand why this should not count as a practical implementation. Also, to my knowledge it's the only technology that can (in principle) provide a fully secure key exchange over an insecure channel, and with states like the US investing heavily in quantum computing the possibility of decrypting RSA-based cryptography (and similar method) seems not so far-fetched anymore. Of course symmetric cryptography can be resilient against quantum attacks (as far as we know today) if this keys are sufficiently long, but the problem is to securely exchange those keys, and this is were quantum cryptography has its place (again, in my opinion). I would love to hear why this idea is flawed though, I just don't think that calling the other side "stupid" is a legitimate way of arguing.
- acqq 10y ago
  "Quantum credit cards" sound so much like snake oil (in the computer security context) it hurts. The underlying paper: https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/fulltext.cfm?uri=optica-1-6-421 https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/fulltext.cfm?uri=optica... Why? Because no sane attacker is interested in placing his probe between the laser and the card, but in the plain traditional electronics that controls the laser. If I were an attacker I couldn't care less that you send "a quantum state" with the laser in the card reader. It's just the plain classical bits on the level I'd be interested in. To protect from that, you'd need the full "quantum internet" to every credit card reader! Which is exactly what djb claims is wrong with the "Quantum Manifesto:" making grandiose security claims that can't stand to the scrutiny of "classical" security researchers, as soon as the whole implementation is considered: "an embarrassingly oversimplified model of the attacker that allows the attacker to inspect photons being sent between quantum-cryptography devices but that does not allow the attacker to interact with the devices in any other way."

nabla9 10y ago

€2 billion in Horizon 2020 funding will be allocated to the European Cloud Initiative[1]. Quantum manifesto lists many items that might be funded under the Cloud Initiative [2], - Core technology of quantum repeaters - Secure point-to-point quantum links - Quantum networks between distant cities - Quantum credit cards - Quantum repeaters with cryptography and eavesdropping detection - Secure Europe-wide internet merging quantum and classical communication - Universal quantum computers will be available with computational power at a level of performance that will exceed even the most powerful classical computers of the future. They will be reprogrammable machines used to solve demanding computational problems, such as optimisation tasks, database searches, machine learning and image recognition. They will contribute to Europe’s smart industry, helping to make European manufacturing industries more efficient. [1]: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1409_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1409_en.htm [2]: http://qurope.eu/system/files/u567/Quantum%20Manifesto.pdf http://qurope.eu/system/files/u567/Quantum%20Manifesto.pdf

ThePhysicist 10y ago
The question is whether the 1 Bn. € allocated to quantum computing would have been spent on other cloud technologies instead, which in my understanding is not the case. As far as my understanding goes the flagship money was distributed via an open propsal-based process, so I really don't see how this money was "stolen" from other initiatives, as the goal of this kind of funding is to let researchers compete for it by making convincing proposals.
- nabla9 10y ago
  The way I see it the question is not that proposal based process itself was fair. The question is if the winning proposals made credible promises. Did the commission know it funded basic research without practical solutions in the sight, or did they read material like Quantum Manfiesto and thought there would be commercial and infrastructure benefits? I'm leaning towards Theories 2 and 3: stupidity and marketing. Physicists who want to build quantum devices made claims outside their expertise and the commission didn't consult experts to verify these claims because it generally has no idea of what it's funding.
  - ThePhysicist 10y ago
    You should not assume that the EU commission is stupid, as they have a large department which employs experts across many fields (mostly scientists as well) that informs policymakers about the risks and potential of these things. And concerning the potential risk of failure: Yes, everyone is aware of that. The flagship projects fund research, which means that there is a risk of failure and that we don't know all the details yet (otherwise it would be engineering). The funding bodies are fully aware of this and they do not expect that every project they fund will work out, but they know that today's research is tomorrow's revenue.
    - nabla9 10y ago
      DJB is one of the leading experts in the field. Who are the security experts who think that quantum communication premises could lead to practical implementations? Even if the base research is successful, most experts agree that quantum communication is solution searching for problem. We can already transmit data securely trough bit-pipes using quantum resistant symmetric ciphers. Actual security problems are on different level (protocols etc.)
      - ThePhysicist 10y ago
        As far as practical implementations are concerned, the Chinese already have a running quantum network between large cities, and are planning to launch a "quantum satellite" in June as well. There are companies selling this kind of equipment already, e.g. ID Quantique, so this technology is already quite mature and working. I don't understand why this should not count as a practical implementation. Also, to my knowledge it's the only technology that can (in principle) provide a fully secure key exchange over an insecure channel, and with states like the US investing heavily in quantum computing the possibility of decrypting RSA-based cryptography (and similar method) seems not so far-fetched anymore. Of course symmetric cryptography can be resilient against quantum attacks (as far as we know today) if this keys are sufficiently long, but the problem is to securely exchange those keys, and this is were quantum cryptography has its place (again, in my opinion). I would love to hear why this idea is flawed though, I just don't think that calling the other side "stupid" is a legitimate way of arguing.
acqq 10y ago
"Quantum credit cards" sound so much like snake oil (in the computer security context) it hurts. The underlying paper: https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/fulltext.cfm?uri=optica-1-6-421 https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/fulltext.cfm?uri=optica... Why? Because no sane attacker is interested in placing his probe between the laser and the card, but in the plain traditional electronics that controls the laser. If I were an attacker I couldn't care less that you send "a quantum state" with the laser in the card reader. It's just the plain classical bits on the level I'd be interested in. To protect from that, you'd need the full "quantum internet" to every credit card reader! Which is exactly what djb claims is wrong with the "Quantum Manifesto:" making grandiose security claims that can't stand to the scrutiny of "classical" security researchers, as soon as the whole implementation is considered: "an embarrassingly oversimplified model of the attacker that allows the attacker to inspect photons being sent between quantum-cryptography devices but that does not allow the attacker to interact with the devices in any other way."