Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. Are we having fun yet?

Are we having fun yet?

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
4 Indlæg 3 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • sophieschmieg@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
    sophieschmieg@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
    sophieschmieg@infosec.exchange
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #1

    Are we having fun yet?

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28627

    sophieschmieg@infosec.exchangeS ar1@mastodon.socialA i@toot.pouyan.netI 3 Replies Last reply
    0
    • sophieschmieg@infosec.exchangeS sophieschmieg@infosec.exchange

      Are we having fun yet?

      https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28627

      sophieschmieg@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
      sophieschmieg@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
      sophieschmieg@infosec.exchange
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #2

      Oh, and in case you weren't having enough fun, here are some updated resource estimates for running Shor's on elliptic curves, unfortunately weirdly focused on cryptocurrencies.

      Fun fact: I almost found a soundness problem in that zero knowledge proof that was based on a quine. Unfortunately the circuit cannot produce quines.

      https://research.google/blog/safeguarding-cryptocurrency-by-disclosing-quantum-vulnerabilities-responsibly/

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • sophieschmieg@infosec.exchangeS sophieschmieg@infosec.exchange

        Are we having fun yet?

        https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28627

        ar1@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
        ar1@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
        ar1@mastodon.social
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #3

        @sophieschmieg is it still "in 8 years we're gonna be able to break all encryption by quantum computers", like in the last 30 years, or is this a real danger? I mean are 10k reconfigurable atomic qubits happening now already? I am a layman, so apologies for an uneducated question.

        1 Reply Last reply
        1
        0
        • sophieschmieg@infosec.exchangeS sophieschmieg@infosec.exchange

          Are we having fun yet?

          https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28627

          i@toot.pouyan.netI This user is from outside of this forum
          i@toot.pouyan.netI This user is from outside of this forum
          i@toot.pouyan.net
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #4

          @sophieschmieg@infosec.exchange am I reading this correctly, that they need ~ 5×10⁹ gates in best case?

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • gambolputte@expressional.socialG gambolputte@expressional.social shared this topic
          Svar
          • Svar som emne
          Login for at svare
          • Ældste til nyeste
          • Nyeste til ældste
          • Most Votes


          • Log ind

          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

          • Login or register to search.
          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
          Graciously hosted by data.coop
          • First post
            Last post
          0
          • Hjem
          • Seneste
          • Etiketter
          • Populære
          • Verden
          • Bruger
          • Grupper