4 ms·
>I'm not sure I buy the Global Risk Institute chart. I get that they need to motivate adoption, but practical cryptanalytic work with quantum computers seems un
by NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
>I'm not sure I buy the Global Risk Institute chart. I get that they need to motivate adoption, but practical cryptanalytic work with quantum computers seems unpromising right now.
Yeah; that doesn't look right to me either. Perhaps "cryptographically relevant" has some unusual meaning (parity with conventional computing?). Otherwise, the consensus view is that there's, pessimistically, a 4% probability of a total break of all public key cryptography within 5 years.
That's practically "abandon all hope right now" territory rather than "motivate adoption" territory.
- xhkkffbf 3y agoWho came to this consensus? I'm not aware that the quantum machines have been able to do much beyond, say, factoring 21.
- Rebelgecko 3y agoI think they were factoring 21 a decade or so ago. Now the record is at least 261,980,999,226,229. Although my understanding is that this # was somewhat cherry picked and the algorithm they used (not shor's) worked well on this 48 bit number but wouldn't scale as well as Schor's algo to sizes that are cryptographically meaningful
- hnaccount_rng 3y agoDo you have a reference for that achievement?