If I solve integer factorization, will I get killed for breaking cryptography?
quora.com
quora.com
Unless, of course, it requires magical/unachievable technology like some impossible yet quantum computer or hundreds of years.
Your only safe bet, in my opinion, is to disclose your algorithm widely in such a manner as all copies can't be vacuumed up.
However, know that the disclosure of such a factoring algorithm will have far reaching and unpredictable consequences.
You could try to take advantage of it by breaking some old unused bitcoin wallets, but the money would be tracked to you eventually, and you'd be subjected to physical attack to disclose it (your algorithm) exclusively, then killed. Theoretically you could time it with disclosure, but you're then risking criminal charges for the theft of the bitcoins.
I bet the NSA has better things to do than that, cryptocurrency nerds on the other hand...
Lol at this. Just keep broadening the definition of traitor until they get there.
Fairly recently there was a crazy guy who shouted "gun" (or "he's got a gun") near a cop, and the cop shot him.
In other words, they will assume you're speaking in the third person about yourself, if you say "gun".
Not that, for instance, you are observing that the officer has a gun and is dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakers_(1992_film)
Whistler, Mother, and Carl investigate the box, finding it capable of breaking the encryption of nearly every computer system.
Nick related.
It would be entirely possible that my end decision would be to never tell anyone.
"If I solve integer factorization, will I get killed for breaking cryptography?" reads as "If I solve integer factorization and start actively breaking cryptography (snoop and steal), will I get killed?" - the answer is yes, most likely.
Where the original question in quora is completely different: "If I solve integer factorization, will I get killed because I would have broken cryptography?" - the answer is no (no with "but again, it depends").
In (1a) or (2), then why kill the discoverer, because if one person figured it out, someone else will.
I'm not sure this is how everybody does/would think, but it seems common-sense-ish to me. For example, Newton/Leibniz.
It’s often just time for the discovery to be made, because of all the proceeding work.
A world changing discovery or invention may seem like a unique magical achievement to the average person, but the question is, how likely is it for the second most suited person to accomplish it? Is it likely that there's a huge gap on average?
https://www.invent.org/blog/trends-stem/who-invented-post-it...
> tasked with developing new, stronger adhesives. However, the sticky “microspheres” he invented were neither very strong nor permanent
[6 years later]
> a new product development researcher at 3M, was singing one night at church and wondered if he could make a bookmark that would stick to his hymnal but not damage the page after removing it
Yes, in theory, these two events could have been replaced, or even both independently occurred to the same person instead of two — but how much longer might it have taken for that to occur, and why didn't anyone think of it sooner?
Blu Tack was invented in 1968, and that weak adhesive above was invented in 1969, so Blu Tack had their 'weak adhesive' product on the market a decade before 3M had theirs. So, why aren't they called Tack-It Notes?
Technically we could have had Post-Its any time from 1968 onward, but it took until 1974 for wish for a sticky bookmark and to know that a weak adhesive existed. That's the irreplaceable person in this story, and without them, it could have easily been years or decades before someone else considered this.
Its the Cycle of technology
"The Brain tells a mathematical horror story": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9rTkVlbTcQ