3 ms·
Same as "Quantum Computing is snake oil". There is reputable science to be done, the experiments are worth funding as basic science. The snake oil part is all
by holowoodman 2y ago
Same as "Quantum Computing is snake oil".
There is reputable science to be done, the experiments are worth funding as basic science. The snake oil part is all the talk about applications being just around the corner (or viable at all). Applications are decades away at least, and maybe also just impossible.
That tons of reputable scientists talk about applications anyways is based on the necessity of securing funding. Nobody founds basic science, at least not as well as a next-big-thing-application right after the funding period ends...
- cryptonector 2y agoQKD does not solve a real problem and will never, never be useful. Worse, QKD was obviously useless on day one. Quantum computing might yet turn out to be useful.
- holowoodman 2y agoThat might be obvious to a security/cryptography person, but it is not obvious to a physicist. The physicist will see "totally confidential channel" as a great useful application. Because he lacks the knowledge that a confidential channel is totally useless without authentication. At best, the authentication will be hand-waved away in the grant application as "out of scope" or "future work".
- cryptonector 2y agoThe snake oil part comes from the business people, not from the physicist. And anyways, it's not that hard for the physicist to learn that there's no future in QKD, and indeed, the physicist wants to know that to avoid wasting their efforts. Being a physicist does not preclude knowledge of classical cryptography -- and vice-versa. The credentialist approach we take to all specialty knowledge has its limits, and we must acknowledge that. Credentials do not limit one's expertise, nor really do they prove it.