What do we do when NASA/GCHQ gets their hands on a quantum computer?
>>51869286
I'd be more scared if the glasgow haskell compiler got ahold of a qc than the nasa.
sentient compilers are scary.
>>51869286
>What do we do when NASA/GCHQ gets their hands on a quantum computer?
Fear their ability to do efficiently step through a single optimization algorithm
>>51869314
desu you need a qc to actually run ghc anyway
>>51869354
You know it'd instantly break all prime-based cryptography, right?
>>51869286
Wait another 10 years before they figure out how to run anything non-trivial on it.
>>51869405
No it wouldn't.
>>51869405
>You know it'd instantly break all prime-based cryptography, right?
Source
>>51869485
Guess you learned something today, now you know that it would instantly break all prime-based cryptography.
>>51869539
No, it wouldn't.
Having a quantum computer and being able to use a quantum computer are completely different milestones.
>>51869629
MY SIDES
>>51869286
who's she?
>>51869687
Good source though.
>>51869707
>she
Look at the pants, man.
>>51869286
Who's this smegma smuggler?
>>51869720
girls can have a penis it's 2015
>>51869405
Just double the key length then. Quantum or not, it's still unreasonable to brute force it
>>51869751
>validating mental illness
>any year
It's like you don't even care.
>>51869751
please leave
>>51869286
Fuck yeah! look at her buldge, who is she???
This thread is pure ass.
Im fucking dying.
>>51869405
>You know it'd instantly break all prime-based cryptography, right?
Not without a ridiculously advanced quantum computer it wouldn't.
It takes hundreds of entangled qubits before you hit the critical amount necessary to reduce RSA to polynomial time. Everything before that and it's as slow or slower than classical methods.
The most entangled qubits we have in actual use right now is 8, and the exponential difficulty of entangling additional qubits approximately cancels out moore's law, meaning we get more available qubits at a very slow and (slightly less than) linear rate.
Unless there's some totally new and unexpected breakthrough, there won't be quantum computers that pose any threat to modern encryption for several decades, and raising key lengths will continue to be an appropriate defense.
>>51869751
>>51869286
gonna need the name of this tranny
>>51869707
>she
>>51869882
Do you realize how few "hundreds" are? We're already up beyond 1k per chip.
>>51869906
>We're already up beyond 1k per chip
I said entangled you dumbass. D-Wave Two has a few hundred qubits, but they're broken up into "cores" each containing 8 entangled qubits. Putting more of them on a chip doesn't do anything to get closer to being a threat to encryption, it just just helps to linearly downscale the runtime of optimization problems.
Basically you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>51869906
>didn't read more than 15 words.
>>51869286
if i would fuck this person. Would this make me gay?
>>51870174
Yes
>>51869286
still looks like a dude desu. 3/10
P U F F Y V U L V A
>>51870174
Yes. See you at pride, you homo.
Is this the /g/ay board am I in the right place
>>51870174
gayER
>>51869286
Expect a new land on the moon.
>>51869286
>ugly ears
>no tits
>weird hands
>hairy bu-
>oh that's a penis
OP is always a fag
We create a new form of encryption that isn't based on public key infrastructure and doesn't use fucking prime numbers which are rather easy to figure out if you actually know how to do it.
You don't? Figured as much.
