3 ms·

Let me know if you find such a betting venue... I'll take the same side. I'm aware of both Microsoft and Google publishing papers claiming astounding quantum f

Let me know if you find such a betting venue... I'll take the same side. I'm aware of both Microsoft and Google publishing papers claiming astounding quantum feats, then later retracting them (I have to assume there were similar instances with lesser known companies). I think your skepticism is valid.

EGreg 4y ago
Just deploy a smart contract on, say, Ethereum MainNet. One side will publish the public keys for RSA and the private key signature can take the money. The other side will likewise lock up some money, but that money can be moved by a smart contract method after a certain date, if the first account still has money in it. You can have multiple dates, for removing some or all of the money in the multiple bets against it. For example, "$200 that it's cracked by 2004". The main problem with bets and contests is that the side which knows the private key can simply withdraw the money itself. That’s why you need the private key to be generated by all parties involved in a ceremony.
- ofcrpls 4y ago
  I want you to plan my next birthday party.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    Funny you say that. We did it in 2013: https://qbix.com/docs/users.pdf https://qbix.com/docs/users.pdf
Strilanc 4y ago
For the Microsoft one I'm assuming you're referring to the retraction of the detection of Majoranas [1]. Do you have a reference for a Google quantum paper being retracted? I don't recall an instance of that (disclaimer: I am on the Google quantum team; my views do not represent them). 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03373-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03373-x
- dekhn 4y ago
  Not a retraction, just that many of the claims about supercomputer performance were easily shown to be less than accurate, making any claims about supremacy less exciting.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  The Google "supremacy" paper wasn't retracted per se, it was just shown to be wrong. They claimed to do a thing on a quantum computer (specifically, simulating a particular quantum circuit) that would take 40,000 years on a classical supercomputer, assuming a particular method for doing the computation. The real number was 2.5 days, and the computing breakthrough involved in the huge speedup was... using SSDs to store your intermediate state instead of recomputing it every iteration.

EGreg 4y ago

Just deploy a smart contract on, say, Ethereum MainNet. One side will publish the public keys for RSA and the private key signature can take the money. The other side will likewise lock up some money, but that money can be moved by a smart contract method after a certain date, if the first account still has money in it. You can have multiple dates, for removing some or all of the money in the multiple bets against it. For example, "$200 that it's cracked by 2004". The main problem with bets and contests is that the side which knows the private key can simply withdraw the money itself. That’s why you need the private key to be generated by all parties involved in a ceremony.

ofcrpls 4y ago
I want you to plan my next birthday party.
- EGreg 4y ago
  Funny you say that. We did it in 2013: https://qbix.com/docs/users.pdf https://qbix.com/docs/users.pdf

Strilanc 4y ago

For the Microsoft one I'm assuming you're referring to the retraction of the detection of Majoranas [1]. Do you have a reference for a Google quantum paper being retracted? I don't recall an instance of that (disclaimer: I am on the Google quantum team; my views do not represent them). 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03373-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03373-x

dekhn 4y ago
Not a retraction, just that many of the claims about supercomputer performance were easily shown to be less than accurate, making any claims about supremacy less exciting.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
The Google "supremacy" paper wasn't retracted per se, it was just shown to be wrong. They claimed to do a thing on a quantum computer (specifically, simulating a particular quantum circuit) that would take 40,000 years on a classical supercomputer, assuming a particular method for doing the computation. The real number was 2.5 days, and the computing breakthrough involved in the huge speedup was... using SSDs to store your intermediate state instead of recomputing it every iteration.