Hacker News Reader

Comment by lottin | Hacker News Reader

Vitalik Buterin, the guy who thinks you can do quantum computing by running a quantum computer emulator on an ordinary computer [1]. Doesn't strike me as the sharpest tool to be honest...

[1] https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/127395790524347596...

View on HN

A random tweet about a concept not being "fundamentally ridiculous" is an awfully low bar to discredit intelligence. Have a look at his blog[0] and let me know if that reinforces your belief.

Besides, if you read the whole thread you'd know he's acknowledging that if we could simulate QC classically, then we'd be able to have more efficient classical search algorithms. It's an if that's likely impossible at scale but not, by definition, impossible.

[0] https://vitalik.ca/

It's not just a random tweet. He's had these ideas since 2013 at least. So here for more details: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/buterins-quantum-quest/ But I'll take a look at his blog, thanks.

> competent observers would likely consider even that on the high side for a mathematical impossibility

If the statement made by Vitalik "There's no proof that efficient classical simulation of QC is impossible" is indeed the case, then it's the linked blogpost that has discredited itself mathematically by treating this as "breaking mathematics" or a "mathematical impossibility". More like groundbreaking surprise, but there's a big difference between "unlikely" and "proven to be impossible" mathematically speaking.

The element of controversy isn't whether efficient quantum simulation is possible, but the idea that by running such a simulation one would be able to break cryptography, as if they were using an actual quantum computer. This is a talk where he makes this claim https://youtu.be/DkUpZkeqhF4?t=3372 If this isn't crackpottery of the highest degree I don't what is.

A talk from 8 years ago, when he was 18 years old? I mean, even having a semi-half-baked opinion on quantum cryptography at 18 is pretty damn impressive. Just because everything is forever on the internet does not mean that opinions are forever.

It's interesting that quantum inspired classical algorithms have been discovered that outperform the previously best known algorithms, and reduce the likelihood of useful quantum speedups in those areas. https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880

I take this tweet as Vitalik saying that a similar thing could happen for mining (or general search), and while it would be surprising, it doesn't seem like it is impossible.

Considering his background, I don't think he was talking about algorithms. In the past he became involved in this project:

"Quantum computing (QC) is a flexible model of computation and there are many physical means of implementing it. One obvious means of implementation is by classical simulation. In other words, performing QC by running ‘quantum software’ on conventional hardware."

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20131005014920/http://noospheer....

He's a marketing genius for being able to sell garbage to fools. I'll give him that

Have you actually looked into the technology behind Ethereum? Do you understand how complex it is? You make it sound like Vitalik just quickly threw something together and had good marketing, however, Ethereum is quite technical and has been since the beginning [1].

[1] https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/

Been presenting on and teaching the technology for 7 years

OK, so you just don't like Ethereum? Why "garbage to fools"?

It started as an ICOs selling off utility tokens. ICOs have a broken incentive structure which leads them to over sell and hype the technology to increase the founders wealth. They are still overselling and hyping future tech that has not been proven. PoS is advertised as a free lunch PoW but PoS does not stand up to scrutiny and likely devolves to PoW with nothing as stake grinding. Vitalik has also put his name on and pumped countless ICOs which have left bagholders with nothings.

Ethereums tech is based off scaling bitcoin in an more ambitious way than bitcoin maintainers consider safe. Ethereum is still PoW and every client must download and validate all other clients smart contracts. This does not scale and leads to centralisation. Removing the most important property of these networks designed to be controlled by no one group/person. Smart contracts and decentralised exchanges are the goals of a decentralised network but Ethereum has sold the idea before they have the technology to achieve this.

Ethereum has excelled at regulator arbitrate. It looks like it's not controlled by one group so it's not regulated like a company. But one group controls the rules and the hard forks on the network. It is a success in this way

Reply on news.ycombinator.com