I’ve been talking with folks at work—people way more into quantum computing than I am about a paper I mentioned yesterday. It’s sparked some good convos. I asked straight up: is the author credible? Has anyone refuted his points? So far, no one’s really challenged the core of his paper, just disagreed with his conclusions or other things he’s said elsewhere. The author, Peter Gutmann, seems to be a contrarian in the crypto world, mainly because he doesn’t see quantum computing as a serious threat something many strongly disagree with. But rather than dismiss him outright, I’ve been trying to focus on the actual argument in the paper, not the man behind it. What’s interesting is that no one’s really saying the main point of his paper is wrong. He basically shows you can match today’s quantum factoring “achievements” with a VIC-20, an abacus, and a dog so yeah, a bit tongue in-cheek, but also raising serious questions about the actual progress being made. Most of the pushback I’ve seen is about what to do not the science, but the policy. People say we shouldn’t ignore QC, because data is being collected now and could be cracked later. Fair point. I agree that being cautious makes sense, even if I think the current hype is overblown. I’m not here to die on any hill. I just want to understand what’s real and what’s noise. It’s been a deep dive, and honestly, a fun one. Hope it gave you something to chew on too.
I’ve been talking with folks at work—people way more into quantum computing than I am about a paper I mentioned yesterday. It’s sparked some good convos. I asked straight up: is the author credible? Has anyone refuted his points? So far, no one’s really challenged the core of his paper, just disagreed with his conclusions or other things he’s said elsewhere.
The author, Peter Gutmann, seems to be a contrarian in the crypto world, mainly because he doesn’t see quantum computing as a serious threat something many strongly disagree with. But rather than dismiss him outright, I’ve been trying to focus on the actual argument in the paper, not the man behind it.
What’s interesting is that no one’s really saying the main point of his paper is wrong. He basically shows you can match today’s quantum factoring “achievements” with a VIC-20, an abacus, and a dog so yeah, a bit tongue in-cheek, but also raising serious questions about the actual progress being made.
Most of the pushback I’ve seen is about what to do not the science, but the policy. People say we shouldn’t ignore QC, because data is being collected now and could be cracked later. Fair point. I agree that being cautious makes sense, even if I think the current hype is overblown.
I’m not here to die on any hill. I just want to understand what’s real and what’s noise. It’s been a deep dive, and honestly, a fun one. Hope it gave you something to chew on too.