Quantum fud is back. \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Quantum fud is back.x.com/n1ckler/status/1839215426091249778

1512 sats \ 16 comments \ @Scoresby 26 Sep bitcoin

Wei dai on the article:

Echoing Zooko's sentiment on quantum--I've also been a skeptic when it comes to quantum computers. However, after reading Scott Aaronson's "Quantum Computing: Between Hope and Hype", I now believe in the feasibility of error-corrected quantum computing within the decade.

Zooko on the article:

I trust Scott Aaronson! So when he says real quantum computation is probably coming in the next decade, I pay attention: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8329

within the decade

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 27 Sep bot

https://xcancel.com/_weidai/status/1839460438268129406

218 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullcount 26 Sep

This is how quantum research started...

And this is how it's going:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2399246-record-breaking-quantum-computer-has-more-than-1000-qubits/

https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/Press-Releases-Statements/Press-Release-View/Article/3498776/post-quantum-cryptography-cisa-nist-and-nsa-recommend-how-to-prepare-now/

58 sats \ 0 replies \ @Golu 26 Sep

Quantum isn't a fud, it's a crap of a thing as I can view it. It's bigger crap than people saying AI gonna destroy the humanity. For Quantum noones saying the same as of now. But they will also rise.

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 26 Sep

My grug brain thinks instead of a 12-24 word seed, we might end up needing 50-100 words.

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @ninjagrandma65 26 Sep

Quantum can break codes.

Computers can break codes of yesteryear.

But computer enabled stronger codes, stronger cryptography.

Quantum cryptography would be strong as fuck.

17 sats \ 2 replies \ @jurraca 26 Sep

The white pill is post-quantum cryptography is starting to be deployed, long before we get a working quantum computer. See Daniel Bernstein, Tanja Lange 's work.

And not fud, both n1ckler and Scott Aronson are v bright and high integrity ime.

12 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 26 Sep

Yeah, I didn't want to title it "quantum concerns" because I feel like we've been through the "oh no, quantum computing is going to kill bitcoin" cycle a few times, but I agree that n1ckler seems sharp. I don't know of Aronson other than this post/blog article.

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 26 Sep

HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Scott he teaches at UT down with him long live Texas A&M

A&M Class of '17

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 26 Sep

17 sats \ 4 replies \ @south_korea_ln 26 Sep

The biggest FUD comes from people who understand QC the least...

59 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 26 Sep

Scott is the opposite of "people who understand QC the least". He has been dunking on D-Wave, IBM, Google, and others since 2008 about how bad their implementations were.

But now, he says we have to take them seriously. That's not nothing.

38 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 26 Sep

Ok, I stand corrected. Didn't go further than the Tweet.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/

He's a physicist at UT Texas, and he has thus, near surely, a deep knowledge of quantum mechanics. Will order his book.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 26 Sep

As someone who went to Texas A&M HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS to Scott and his school! If he was super good with quantum he would go to A&M to research and teach!

College rivalries are a hell of a thing lol

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 26 Sep

Yeah, I only had time to read a little of the article that the tweet links to, but it does give one pause...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 26 Sep

https://xcancel.com/n1ckler/status/1839215426091249778