Re: [Cfrg] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yonezawa-pairing-friendly-curves-01.txt

[Peter Gutmann <[e-mail]>]

Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <[e-mail]> writes:

>While not a quantum physicist myself, I do think you are downplaying the risks:

Nor am I, but this guy is, or at least he's a theoretical physicist:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/the-case-against-quantum-computing

with expected "case against the case" responses, the main one being that as a
theoretical physicist he focuses on somewhat red-herring issues like the issue
of working with continuous parameters rather than the more pressing practical
issues of decoherence and error control, which is what's actually killing it
at any scale beyond "toy lab experiment".

>https://www.insidequantumtechnology.com

That's sort of like going to Russia Today for news about Russia... I chose the
IEEE ref as an example not because it's the perfect critique (it's actually
somewhat flawed) but because they get technically knowledgeable people while
not being outright QC cheerleaders.

>that's not an excuse to ignore the upcoming threat on the algorithmic level.

Sure, but you need to keep in mind when doing that that anything standardised
by the CFRG will be immediately rushed into production by people with no
understanding of how to correctly implement it, deploy it, and apply it,
simply because it's trendy.

Prediction: As soon as any significant standards body like the CFRG
standardises PQC algorithms, there will be not just one but multiple PQC forks
of Bitcoin/blockchain tech and/or new cryptocurrencies built on PQC, not
because it's required or useful but just because it's there.  And the moment
it's done there, the herd will follow because anything that BTC does has to be
good.

Anyone want to make a bet with me on this?  I'll take anything from "dinner at
Tony's Steak House" to "your research funding for the next five years" as the
stake, depending on how strongly you believe in PQC :-).

Peter.