4 ms·

What would this mean for the global economy?

• ch0wn 15y ago
  This could have quite an impact on CPU-bound cryptographic algorithms.
  • tptacek 15y ago
    Probably not. Most modern ciphers have security bounds measured in solar systems worth of atom-sized supercomputers. Hardware-accelerated attacks on 1024 bit RSA keys (for which no real-world attacks are published) are predicated on custom silicon. A massive, massive improvement in compute might hasten SHA-1's demise, but SHA-1 is already on life support today. It is unlikely that even a huge unexpected leap in compute power would change the fundamentals of how things are encrypted today. Unless something like quantum pans out, you can expect us to still be using RSA (or more likely ECDSA and ECDH), AES (or something like one of the eSTREAM finalists), and HMAC-SHA3 for the foreseeable future. The thing that will change what our crypto stack looks like will be a new discovery in cryptology, not a new way to build super-cheap, super-fast processors.
    • pork 15y ago
      Or in other words, you're only going to get constant factor improvements in asymptotic run times with these chips.
      • tptacek 15y ago
        Yep. I'm not a cryptographer, but generally when we get to the point where we can envision how a sudden reduction in compute cost could threaten an algorithm or construction, that's when people start freaking out. That's where we're at with SHA1, but I don't know what other building block is in the same position.
• DrCatbox 15y ago
  The same as always, more "value", specialization and jobs created which means more money for the rich and less money for the poor.
  • carbocation 15y ago
    Would you have leveled a similar criticism against farming during the agricultural revolution?
    • starwed 15y ago
      Eh, it would actually be more reasonable in that context. Dipping into wikipedia for a quick quote: >The shift to agricultural food production supported a denser population, which in turn supported larger sedentary communities, the accumulation of goods and tools, and specialization in diverse forms of new labor. The development of larger societies led to the development of different means of decision making and to governmental organization. Food surpluses made possible the development of a social elite who were not otherwise engaged in agriculture, industry or commerce, but dominated their communities by other means and monopolized decision-making. (Dr Catbox's comment, though, was just kinda mindless reactionism and had nothing to do with the original question.)
  • SwellJoe 15y ago
    Are you sure you're in the right place? If you believe making bigger levers for human minds is evil, this might not be the right community for you, since it's what most of us are trying to do on a daily basis.
    • Tycho 15y ago
      I like the way you phrased that - levers for the human mind. Maybe when we talk about the fight against poverty and unemployment, we should talk about it in terms of the type of levers we are making. Like high-frequency trading is a lever that only very smart, very educated people can actually use. But all humans no matter their intelligence or education possess a flexibility that would let them be productive (beyond what can be achieved with automation), given the right levers.