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

[denis bider <[e-mail]>]

The following graph is commonly shared about why fusion is always 30 years
away:

http://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png

I am surprised by Dan's probability estimation for QC capable of breaking
ECC at 2^(-10). This could be taken to mean that out of 1024 probable
universes that start in this moment, quantum decoherence and other
obstacles would be solved in only 1.

This is a prediction with 99.9% confidence. The human track record of
predicting the future does not seem to support predictions with such
confidence. When billions of USD are being invested into research by people
who expect a pay off, we could entertain a prediction that they're 90%
likely to fail, but a prediction that they're 99.9% likely to fail seems
overly confident.


On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:46 PM John Mattsson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Dan Brown <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > The topic of non-PQ crypto's value applies to other CFRG drafts, such as
> PAKEs, VRFs, Oblivious
> > functions, etc., so maybe this discussion should be taken outside this
> thread?
>
> +1
>
> > Non-PQ crypto still seems worthwhile to me, mainly because I estimate
> the chance of a practical ECC-
> > breaking quantum computer to be low, e.g. 2^(-10), yet still high enough
> to warrant a hybrid of PQ and
> > non-PQ crypto, e.g. McEliece + ECC. (See further below.)
>
> I would not be too surprised if ECC breaking quantum computers turn out to
> be like (warm) fusion power and always be an estimated 20 years away.
> (first fusion power reactor patents was in the 1940s). However artificial
> intelligence beating humans in Go was always estimated to be far into the
> future, until DeepMind did it.
>
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>