I've been discussing the paper I wrote about yesterday at work with people who are much more knowledgeable about QC (Quantum Computing) than I am. It has been rather interesting. I specifically asked if anyone had debunked the author's points. Is he credible? What do people think? It’s been engaging. For the most part, people are not challenging his core thesis, which I find very interesting. They mostly disagree with his conclusions—primarily things he's said on mailing lists, not in the paper itself.

From what I'm hearing, Peter Gutmann is a contrarian voice in the cryptography world. This seems to be due to his dismissal of QC as a threat to cryptography and that it is something that can be ignored. I've heard some say that researchers aren’t going to “waste their time” refuting this paper. Side note: it's not just Bitcoin that is contentious.

I’ve pushed back on this attitude as a mistake. Dissident voices—even from minority opinions—can be correct. The thing is, several people couldn’t get past disagreeing with his opinion on ignoring QC and post-quantum encryption research. To me, that isn’t the most important thing. What I’m most interested in is understanding whether what we’ve been told—and what people are basing their reactions on—is nonsense.

Over the years I have learned that a large number of people are perfectly content to base their opinions on topics on things not directly related to the topic. They will straw-man something all day if it means they can continue in their current world view. That's not how I'm wired. It is rare that someone who is speaking truth is without flaws in their arguments. They often have flaws in their conclusions. But the curious mind and a truth seeker is better served by steel-manning their arguments. In highly technical fields people often are not the best communicators. They often take things person. They often lash out and over-sell their case. This doesn't always mean they should be ignored.

First off, let’s be clear: the paper does not say or attempt to prove that QC will never work or never be a threat to modern encryption. The author may personally hold that view, but it’s not the focus of the paper. So far, not a single person has told me his thesis is wrong. As a reminder, this is the core point of the paper:

He isn’t trying to prove that QC is impossible. I’ve heard that’s his opinion, but again, the paper isn’t trying to prove that.

The majority of responses I’ve received—and there are a lot—are about what should be done. Almost no one believes QC should be ignored. Even those who agree with my opinion that most of what we’ve seen is hype still think researchers should be working on quantum-resistant encryption. The main reason is that so much encrypted data is hoovered up by state actors like the NSA and its counterparts in other countries. If or when that encryption is broken in the future, the consequences could be catastrophic.

I’ve repeated this throughout the thread: I’m here to learn. I have my instincts and opinions, but I don’t mind being wrong. I welcome being proven wrong. I have no problem with cryptographers working on stronger encryption. It’s none of my business how they spend their time. Clearly, a lot of money is being spent on QC research, and I think, after more discussion and learning, that ignoring it is likely a mistake.

That said, I don’t think we should be rushing or acting like the sky is falling. I’m thinking about Bitcoin here. If the tests we've been shown so far are this weak and flawed, I don’t believe QC is a threat that’s just around the corner. It could be another 25 years—or more. It may never work. But on the other hand its not like changing bitcoin is an easy thing to do. I'm not ready to call anyone proposing post-quantum changes a spook. Not yet at least.

This has been an interesting rabbit hole for me. I hope y’all have found it interesting as well.