5 ms·
> Given that we are still some ways off from quantum computers that can actually break ECC, we would be trading security now for insecurity now. What makes you
by Eisenstein 3y ago
> Given that we are still some ways off from quantum computers that can actually break ECC, we would be trading security now for insecurity now.
What makes you think that practical quantum computers are a certainty? Everything I have read makes it seem more like a 'we can't not try to figure it out, because it might work' rather than a 'we are on the way to doing it, it just needs more time'.
- hdhfjkrkrme 3y agoYou can use this argument against anything not done yet: "we've been trying to build fusion reactors for 50 years now, we should give up now"
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Eisenstein 3y agoExcept that isn't the argument I am making.
- hdhfjkrkrme 3y agoWe have small quantum computers, we don't have big ones. We have fusion power on small scale, we don't have it on commercial scale. Seems to be the same argument.
- count 3y agoWe have small, usable quantum computers and have grown them for years. We have never had fusion power on a small scale (we have had fusion ignition/reaction, but never [afaik] generated usable power), let alone showed continuous growth in scale of that power over the years. They're not the same. Fusion is a 'science' problem, quantum is (mostly) an 'engineering' problem.
- Eisenstein 3y agoRe-read my comment and then point out the spot where I advocated ceasing research and development of anything.
- adrian_b 3y agoThe possibility that good-enough quantum computers might not be possible, is just an additional argument for not replacing the current key exchange methods with post-quantum methods, but at most only with hybrid methods, which retain at least one method for which there exists reasonable trust.