3 ms·
No, that's not what that means. Not sure what you mean by the "that" when you say "if that's true", but there is nothing in this thread or by google that is an
by wasabi991011 2y ago
No, that's not what that means.
Not sure what you mean by the "that" when you say "if that's true", but there is nothing in this thread or by google that is anywhere close to breaking encryption.
- bluSCALE4 2y agoHow are you so sure? If something that takes years is completed in minutes, how is encryption safe?
- shawabawa3 2y agoThe amount of cubits required for a practical application of shors algorithm to break modern encryption is known and it's around 2500 qubits Willow has 100
- wasabi991011 2y agoBecause the "something" in question is not decryption. It's actually specifically something with no useful result, just a benchmark. Decryption with quantum computers is still likely decades away, as others have pointed out. To be specific, the best know quantum factoring did 15 = 3x5, and when 35 was not able to be factored when attempted. Most experimental demonstrations have stopped in recent years due to how pointless it currently is.