4 ms·

1. We kinda knew RSA has an expiration date due to quantum computers. Assuming the paper is true, this just brought the expiration date far closer to us. 2. Ma

1. We kinda knew RSA has an expiration date due to quantum computers. Assuming the paper is true, this just brought the expiration date far closer to us. 2. Major issue is going to be webpki and replaying govt captured encrypted communications. 3. There are a lot of abandoned servers out there that use RSA. There is a lot of code signing that uses RSA. There is just a lot of identity proven on the web that uses RSA to prove the identity. It's going to be a clusterfuck of identity. Again, assuming the paper means RSA is just completely broken.

dataflow 6y ago
> 1. We kinda knew RSA has an expiration date due to quantum computers. Only if you somehow "know" quantum computing is ever going to be practically realized. It may never be.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- freeone3000 6y ago
  There's no real big theoretical problems in the quantum computer building space. There's problems of scale, and funding, and usual growing pains of a new industry, but scale went from 7 to 24 fairly quickly and all it took was more money. If I gave IBM $10T dollars, they could build me a 1024-qbit computer. Once it gets cheaper, which is the current problem, I don't see any reason why Azure Quantum (ex) wouldn't simply decrease in price to where it can be used practically.
  - Laakeri 6y ago
    >There's no real big theoretical problems in the quantum computer building space The current quantum computers are just on the edge of what we can simulate classically, so we can't yet rule out the possibility that realizing a quantum computation requires an exponential amount of energy in the number of qubits. (Though it should be noted that quantum mechanics predicts that this will not happen.)
    - coliveira 6y ago
      > it should be noted that quantum mechanics predicts that this will not happen There is a possibility that QM will break somewhere, but I wouldn't consider this very probable...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ouid 6y ago
    >There's no real big theoretical problems in the quantum computer building space. I don't think this is true...
  - core-questions 6y ago
    This couldn't be further from the truth. If more money could get IBM to more qubits, they would be doing it. Fundamental problems with scaling have held them back for ages. The only people making any progress on scaling is D-Wave and their model is never going to have any impact on factoring anyway.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  This is true - in general each bit you add to a quantum computer means the noise floor needs to be twice as low, so difficulty scales exponentially. That is unless a threshold is reached where error correction scales faster.
chrisco255 6y ago
Does this technique for factorization by Schnorr have any implications for any other cryptographic methods as well (if confirmed)?

dataflow 6y ago

> 1. We kinda knew RSA has an expiration date due to quantum computers. Only if you somehow "know" quantum computing is ever going to be practically realized. It may never be.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
freeone3000 6y ago
There's no real big theoretical problems in the quantum computer building space. There's problems of scale, and funding, and usual growing pains of a new industry, but scale went from 7 to 24 fairly quickly and all it took was more money. If I gave IBM $10T dollars, they could build me a 1024-qbit computer. Once it gets cheaper, which is the current problem, I don't see any reason why Azure Quantum (ex) wouldn't simply decrease in price to where it can be used practically.
- Laakeri 6y ago
  >There's no real big theoretical problems in the quantum computer building space The current quantum computers are just on the edge of what we can simulate classically, so we can't yet rule out the possibility that realizing a quantum computation requires an exponential amount of energy in the number of qubits. (Though it should be noted that quantum mechanics predicts that this will not happen.)
  - coliveira 6y ago
    > it should be noted that quantum mechanics predicts that this will not happen There is a possibility that QM will break somewhere, but I wouldn't consider this very probable...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ouid 6y ago
  >There's no real big theoretical problems in the quantum computer building space. I don't think this is true...
- core-questions 6y ago
  This couldn't be further from the truth. If more money could get IBM to more qubits, they would be doing it. Fundamental problems with scaling have held them back for ages. The only people making any progress on scaling is D-Wave and their model is never going to have any impact on factoring anyway.
akvadrako 6y ago
This is true - in general each bit you add to a quantum computer means the noise floor needs to be twice as low, so difficulty scales exponentially. That is unless a threshold is reached where error correction scales faster.

chrisco255 6y ago

Does this technique for factorization by Schnorr have any implications for any other cryptographic methods as well (if confirmed)?