←back to thread

Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with a VIC-20, an Abacus, and a Dog

(eprint.iacr.org)
81 points teddyh | 1 comments | 18 Jul 25 19:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.218s | source
Show context
tomgag ◴[18 Jul 25 19:57 UTC] No.44609103[source]▶
I guess I'll post it here as well. This is my personal take on the whole story: https://gagliardoni.net/#20250714_ludd_grandpas

A relevant quote: "this is your daily reminder that "How large is the biggest number it can factorize" is NOT a good measure of progress in quantum computing. If you're still stuck in this mindset, you'll be up for a rude awakening."

Related: this is from Dan Bernstein: https://blog.cr.yp.to/20250118-flight.html#moon

A relevant quote: "Humans faced with disaster tend to optimistically imagine ways that the disaster will be avoided. Given the reality of more and more user data being encrypted with RSA and ECC, the world will be a better place if every effort to build a quantum computer runs into some insurmountable physical obstacle"

replies(5): >>44609195 #>>44609761 #>>44611286 #>>44611423 #>>44612270 #
1. theuirvhhjj588 ◴[19 Jul 25 00:14 UTC] No.44611286[source]▶
That's a cop out.

I agree with what you're saying, but what you're also essentially saying is that QCs are so useless at the moment that the granularity of integers is not enough to measure progress on the hardware.