Ask HN: Do Quantum Computers Exist? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Do Quantum Computers Exist?

2 pointsLinuxBender9 comments

Serious question. Has anyone here actually:

- put their hands on one?

- logged into one?

- performed calculations or brute forced encryption with one?

I ask because several open source applications are implementing encryption schemes that are said to prevent being broken by quantum computers but I have no idea how they have tested their encryption outside of theory. I have seen pictures of things that purport to be quantum computers but they just look like the artwork that a former colleague created using failed components from the data-center.

If nobody from HN have touched one then I want to know where is the bubble that contains these experts?

View on HN

It's probably better to ask such questions without goading and pre-dunking on the people who might disagree with you. Otherwise it's more of a comment than a good-faith question.

With all due respect you read too much into my question. I am looking for someone, anyone that has touched one or logged into one for realzies. If nobody has then not how are people testing their quantum-proof encryption? I believe this is a valid question. How do OpenSSH and NIST know this works? [1]

the hybrid post-quantum algorithm mlkem768x25519-sha256 g is now used by default for key agreement. This algorithm is considered to be safe against attack by quantum computers, is guaranteed to be no less strong than the popular curve25519-sha256 algorithm, has been standardised by NIST and is considerably faster than the previous default.

I would expect that something like hashcat would have to be ported to a quantum computer, then proof of concept modules created to break every type of encryption using quantum computing. There should be videos of people actively using quantum computers and producing fascinating results using real world data and especially showing they can break all encryption except for mlkem768x25519-sha256.

[1] - https://www.openssh.com/releasenotes.html#10.0p1

I'm not reading anything into it, I'm reading what it says. It's not about the accuracy of your views, just the tone

I want to know where is the bubble that contains these experts?

That's a straightforward putdown. You can frame a question skeptically without doing this sort of thing because who on earth would want to actually engage with your meaningfully when you do? It's not in your own interest.

HN has a very diverse tech crowd. If none of the quantum people are here I am going to dig in my high heels and call that a bubble. i.e. group of people isolated from anyone outside of their group considering this site has some of the most obscure cryptologists as members.

Right, that's what I'm saying. Namecalling is not asking a question, at least, not very effectively.

Describing a group of people that may be isolated is in no way name calling. That is describing a situation which could very well be the case if a government relocated a bunch of computer scientists into a hidden secure facility. Anyway I am not going to try to convince you of anything. I activated you somehow and that was not the intention.

You have no idea whether these people are 'isolated', that's just an assumption you are making to characterize them negatively. That is completely regular, generic namecalling not me "reading into" something or getting "activated", whatever that means.

well i at least think that they're real cuz i heard that Microsoft is making a new state of matter for that thing that your taking about aka quantum computing and supposedly the new state of matter is a "topological superconductor".

  Chalmers: Uh.. a quantum computer? At this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country, localized entirely within your kitchen?
  Skinner: Yes!
  Chalmers: May I see it?
  Skinner: No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com