Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
Blockchains. Why is this report even mentioning blockchains? Who cares about enterprise blockchain in 2025?
Could be an LLM thing, I noticed they still churn out stuff about blockchain when generating PRDs with a future proofing section, at about the same time I noticed management had okayed using chatgpt to write product specifications.
@dgerard, a system which (apparently) prevents posting a direct link to the article is… an awful system…
The security guys aren’t interested in quantum computing either. Because it doesn’t exist yet. The report’s author seems surprised that “several interviewees believe that quantum computing is in an overhyped phase.”
If and when quantum computing does start making waves, I expect the security guys will start loudly crowing about it.
Its ostensible ability to break most regular encryption schemes over its knee would be a complete fucking nightmare for them, that's for sure.
Its ostensible ability to break most regular encryption schemes over its knee
Which still has to be proven.
As far as i understand the quantum thing, the breaking encryption part relies on a principle you can't implement in contemporary computing-hardware without breaking that principle.
At least current implementations perform worse than bruteforcing, outside of some tailor-made benchmarks.
The problem is that to start breaking encryption you need quantum computing with a bunch of qubits as originally defined and not "our lawyer signed off on the claim that we have 1000 qubits".
holy shit how have i never heard of this paper
thank you for sharing!
oh yeah that paper was also fantastic :D
Not only that, the reported development of post-quantum cryptography (with NIST having released some finalised encryption standards last year) could give cybersec professionals a headstart on protecting everything if it fully comes to fruition (assuming said cryptography lives up to its billing).
You want me to take a shot in the dark, I expect zero-knowledge proofs will manage to break into the mainstream before quantum computing becomes a thing - minimising the info you give out is good for protecting your users' privacy, and minimises the amount of info would-be attackers could work with.
"reported development" wat
I'm not sure I fully understand your comment here (it almost seems as though you're posting this as a "very recent" thing)? which is confusing because the body of work and implementations go back years. the current works around standardisation and such (as well as extending in specific protocols) is all around setting baselines
also, following on re diz's comment, to my knowledge the most recently fanfare'd quantum attack on an rsa-family algo was a whole whopping 22 bit integer. keep in mind that for this field, difficulty scales exponentially with every bit. and 2048/4096 rsa usage has been commonplace for a fair while even before ecdsa/ed25519/chacha/poly/etc all started picking up in popularity (which is also like 2014+). I have no good insights on the qubits development world to guess how far off we are (perhaps blake might have a guess here), but it feels a significant way off
they don't need to worry about something that doesn't exist beyond DoD LARPing parties