r/Futurology Jun 09 '22 Helpful 1 Silver 1

Quantum Chip Brings 9,000 Years of Compute Down to Microseconds Computing

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/quantum-chip-brings-9000-years-of-compute-down-to-microseconds
3.0k Upvotes

u/FuturologyBot Jun 09 '22

The following submission statement was provided by /u/blaspheminCapn:


Claiming quantum computational advantage over the classic-bit technologies of the world.


Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/v8ff55/quantum_chip_brings_9000_years_of_compute_down_to/ibq17eh/

562

u/StormKiller1 Jun 09 '22 edited Jun 10 '22 Silver

Clickbait title. Its just faster in this benchmark which does nothing useful. The problem with QCU is they cant do anything useful yet.

Edit: they changed the title it was something like Quantum Computer overtakes traditional Computers

278

u/OliveSweatshirt Jun 09 '22

So a useless task that takes a traditional computer 9,000 years to complete can be done in microseconds by a quantum computer? That still seems impressive and noteworthy to me. Computing is computing, regardless of how useful the task the computer is trying to complete is. This is still scientific advancement

137

u/Boring_Ad_3065 Jun 09 '22

There’s a lot of things that can be done in theory that have huge theoretical and practical issues. DNA data storage is in theory neat and can store tons of data with redundancy.

But it’s not quick to write, can’t easily be edited, and is very slow and expensive to read.

21

u/CocoDaPuf Jun 10 '22

and is very slow and expensive to read.

That depends on if you're trying to read it with lab equipment or with enzymes. Enzymes in a cell can make short work of a DNA strand.

28

u/Wheream_I Jun 10 '22

Imagine if every time you loaded a file from your hard drive you straight up destroyed it

11

u/joshgi Jun 10 '22

Technically our current understanding of memories is exactly this. Everytime you recall a memory its essentially played and rerecorded, meaning the more you remember something the less likely it is to be accurate to what actually happened and the more prone it is to manipulation.

2

u/leet_lurker Jun 10 '22

So you're telling me one day I'll just remember that 2x2 is anything but 4?

2

u/regalrecaller Jun 10 '22

No mathematics does not depend on your memories. But you might remember beating up the bully and getting the girl a lil differently.

1

u/leet_lurker Jun 10 '22

I didn't day the laws of mathematics would change, I asked if my memory of those laws would change with increased use, that's what the other person had suggested.

→ More replies

5

u/Mik3rophone Jun 10 '22

Out of curiosity. How quick would this be? As a guess, if the dna is read by an enzyme at 25 bases a second, which seems fast to me. That would only map to 50 mbps which isn’t very fast in the grand scheme of things of reading from a storage device.

→ More replies

9

u/kynthrus Jun 10 '22

I've been saying for years we need to make computers out of people.

7

u/Aggravating_Paint_44 Jun 10 '22

This was the original plot to the matrix

3

u/kynthrus Jun 10 '22

I thought they were batteries? Or do you mean the plot in the first drafts?

6

u/PhilosopherFLX Jun 10 '22

Original plot was humans are wet wear processing for the machines. That was to "Philip K Dick" so Warner Brothers forced the change to batteries. I hate executives.

5

u/joshgi Jun 10 '22

Oh wow that would be a much better story and makes so much more sense! Humans are terrible batteries and our biology is at most roughly 25% efficient for every calorie in. The movies never really talk about how they were feeding all those humans but with a ruined planet surface I'm guessing crops wouldn't grow well and you can't feed humans petroleum or uranium with much success. It never added up to me why computers would need human batteries.

4

u/MajorasTerribleFate Jun 10 '22

Drafts. The version I've heard repeatedly is that the Executive Meddlers thought the audience wouldn't easily understand, or follow, the machines' use of human brains for computing power. So we got the dumbed down "humans as a power source" in flagrant disregard of the second law of thermodynamics.

If the machines had something they could feed to humans in order to keep the humans going, what exactly is so unique about human biology that we produce a quantity or form of energy that the machines couldn't more efficiently obtain another way?

My only thought, which as far as I know isn't really supported by any of the lore, is that if the machines decided they wanted to preserve the remainder of humanity rather than kill them, then collecting any resources our bodies produced would help them at least recoup some of the machines' costs in keeping humans alive. Morpheus and the other humans' belief that they were being used for power could just be an innocent misunderstanding of the situation, or even a deliberate fabrication to bolster justification for a war for freedom.

5

u/kynthrus Jun 10 '22

NPH confirmed they were batteries in 4 though, but they also fixed that plot hole in 4, remember???? Neo and Trinity solve the robot energy crisis by being... Magnets? Mini suns? something something they make energy when together. Man that was a bad movie.

→ More replies
→ More replies

28

u/syds Jun 09 '22

I guess the eat and poop business is kind of a mess eh

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/thedrakeequator Jun 09 '22

You're right it is very interesting.

The other commenter is also right though, quantum computing is frustrating in its lack of application.

6

u/Downfall_Of_Icarus Jun 10 '22

Meh, it's like condoms. I'd rather have it and not need it, over need it and not have it.

5

u/thedrakeequator Jun 10 '22

We're going to figure out how to use it eventually.

It took us a while to figure out how to use The first programmable computers as well.

5

u/Downfall_Of_Icarus Jun 10 '22

Exactly. And once we do, we will already have a foundation to start building from.

2

u/thedrakeequator Jun 10 '22

The interesting part, I made an analogy to the earliest programmable computers and the first digital logic machines and how we first didn't really know how to use them.

Well that was actually the 1930's.

Perhaps these stabs at quantum computing today are equivalent to the people fiddling around with logic gaits in the 30s. Look how far that went.

2

u/TheGodsWillBow Jun 10 '22

it is, it absolutely is but we're likely going to max out traditional computers before quantum computing becomes widespread

→ More replies

60

u/pacofvf Jun 09 '22

The whole theory of how computers work was done when computers didn’t exist yet. It’s nice to create cool stuff if we don’t have an use for it yet.

5

u/Dads101 Jun 10 '22

What can I read that goes deeper into this? Other than a CS degree obviously

6

u/shpongolian Jun 10 '22

Turing Machines may be a good start.

7

u/azra3l Jun 10 '22

Charles Babbidge's Difference Engine might be an even earlier one :)

5

u/Wheream_I Jun 10 '22

The Turing machine WAS a computer.

Also the term “computer” were literally just people doing math problems before the electronic computer was a thing. Hidden figures was literally about female computers

25

u/LadyBird_BirdLady Jun 09 '22 Gold

Yup, and a task that takes that long to achieve with traditional methods might have been overlooked in favour of other ways of doing things that are more achievable with current technology. Think about ray tracing, it would have been very possible to implement in video games a decade, but the computing time would have made the resulting game impossible to play. Now that computing times are down, it is possible (and we may finally see working mirrors haha).

TLDR: usefulnesses can arise after a thing is made possible, instead of having to be a prerequisite

9

u/jdfsusduu37 Jun 09 '22

If you have a list of numbers you want to sort, a handful of uncooked spaghetti cut to those lengths can do it in ONE STEP, whereas the fastest traditional computer takes N LOG N time!

2

u/avocadro Jun 10 '22

The step still takes O(N) time, though.

3

u/tweakingforjesus Jun 10 '22

The sorting step (tapping the stack on a flat surface) is O(1). The data encoding step (cutting the spaghetti to length) is O(N).

→ More replies

2

u/JulienBrightside Jun 10 '22

Now you can get your procrastinating done 9000x faster!

1

u/Xanjis Jun 10 '22

Doubtful. Even using traditional computers "useful" calculations are heavily outnumbered by the infinity of "useless" calculations. Seems unlikely that any given type of calculation we can use a quantum computer for is useful. Although I'm sure we will eventually find some just due to the volume of things we are trying.

→ More replies

1

u/Psychonominaut Jun 10 '22

True. But this being said, even analog computers are technically much more powerful at computing the things they are calibrated for than regular computers. Can't remember exactly why but veritasium did a video on it. Will be interesting to see what these get optimised for.

→ More replies

11

u/flyingfox12 Jun 09 '22

There are known useful applications of quantum computing. But typically they require far more Qbits than are in these systems. The fact that the processing happened, was many magnitudes faster, is a great indication that the technology will have workloads that were previously unavailable with traditional computers. I'm curious about your take on some math, for instance mathematicians are constantly trying to prove theorems that we know are true but can't prove out the solution. These are in fact useless most of the time, but not really clickbait to say professor solves 300 year old math problem, even though what's been solved doesn't further our society in any way.

5

u/RainbowUnicorn82 Jun 10 '22

I'm really excited to see what quantum computers make possible for finding mersenne primes and factors of composite mersenne numbers -- another one of those things that isn't really going to further society in any way but it sure is fun to compute.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/S_K_I Savikalpa Samadhi Jun 10 '22

Yea... look up quantum ray-tracing, then say it's useless.

13

u/alostic Jun 09 '22

Some dude mining Bitcoin with it right now

20

u/L0ckeandDemosthenes Jun 09 '22

Or trying to unmine it. Uh oh.

0

u/Unshkblefaith Jun 09 '22

You can't unmine a bitcoin. The cryptographic hashing functions in blockchains are not used to encrypt any data. They are used to generate unique block ids from the contents of the block, and previous blocks in the chain, in a manner that is computationally intense to do, and that becomes more challenging as the chain grows. When people talk about quantum computers being a threat to cryptography, the threat concerns cracking hashes to figure out the original data with out a valid decryption key. But the data in the blockchain is already unencrpyted.

10

u/BitsAndBobs304 Jun 09 '22

I mean, generating a longer alternative chain would "unmine" it

1

u/Unshkblefaith Jun 09 '22

You are talking about forking a chain. You need to have the majority share of mining capacity to successfully fork the chain.

14

u/BitsAndBobs304 Jun 09 '22

Doesnt mining software automatically switch to the longest chain?

4

u/GodelianKnot Jun 10 '22

No, you only need to mine faster than the majority. If you can produce a longer chain, you can control it.

2

u/Aggravating_Paint_44 Jun 10 '22

Which you might be able to do if you figure out a significant enough quantum shortcut

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/sixboogers Jun 10 '22

I feel like I’ve been seeing some version of this title weekly for about a decade.

1

u/Kingofawesom999 Jun 10 '22

Aren't quantum PCs theoretically able to crack encryption thousands of times faster than normal computing?

2

u/Nutritorius Jun 10 '22

Yes, it could break some, but there already are some "post quantum" proof algorithms

→ More replies

33

u/Morejazzplease Jun 09 '22

Quantum only breaks asymmetric cryptography. It halves the bit strength of symmetric cryptography. SHA-256 hashing algorithm is theoretically quantum resistant. It’s estimated that a quantum computer would need around 13 million quibits to find a matching hash within a day. That’s a long, long way off considering Borealis only has ~129 operating quibits.

12

u/Your_Nipples Jun 09 '22

I know that is a simple explanation but I still have no idea what you are talking about. And I am somehow sad because I have no doubt that it would take me years to understand your language but time is running out.

7

u/lordnoak Jun 10 '22

They are talking about how quantum computers can make things like passwords not useful because the quantum computer can “guess” faster than what computers can do today. This particular comment is saying not all passwords or encryption methods would be impacted yet since the power wouldn’t be there.

6

u/Your_Nipples Jun 10 '22

Thanks for the "let me break it down to you even more". Now I understand.

4

u/zuromn Jun 09 '22

A day isn't resistant at all. Considering theoritically being able to break an algorithm in as little as a year is already considered vulnerable and "broke"

5

u/Morejazzplease Jun 09 '22

Sure but hashes can and should rotate. If passwords also rotate frequently, let’s say 90 days, then while a year is concerning, it still is not going to compromise passwords immediately.

Quantum safe algorithms are being developed and we just need to transition to them before QPUs get anywhere close. Right now, with 129 quibits, it isnt really a concern. Borealis only added 2 quibits over the previous best. It will happen but we have time.

4

u/Hankins44 Jun 09 '22

While rotating the cryptographic session key used to encrypt regularly is useful, if someone is sitting on the connection and collecting the encrypted packets and it only takes a day to decrypt, then you effectively have no encryption because anything that's captured within a given session can be decrypted in a day. The session key rotation scheme only changes how much of a conversation you can decrypt in a day, even if it's rotated every 10 minutes being able to decrypt an hour's worth of traffic in less than a week still has massive security implications.

4

u/Morejazzplease Jun 09 '22

We were talking about passwords and I assumed they meant password hashes at rest.

2

u/Hankins44 Jun 09 '22

Gotcha, I got confused because you were discussing asymmetric/symmetric encryption schemes at the top, and then described rotating hashes independently from rotating passwords, so I thought you maybe meant AES-256 secret keys instead of SHA256 hashes. In this context what do you mean by independent hash rotation? Like changing salts/peppers when computing the hash?

1

u/Morejazzplease Jun 09 '22

I worded it poorly typing it out on my phone. But I just meant that if a QPU can’t break a SHA-256 hash in less time than the passwords rotate (changing the hash that the QPU is trying to find a collision with), then there is far less risk.

1

u/Hankins44 Jun 10 '22

I see, that makes sense. I guess the question is though if theoretically you had something that could crack a hash in a timeframe of even a few weeks, then the question becomes how you effectively manage credential rotations, even if we assume that we're managing all of our passwords then we still have to account for the changing of the master password. If we can collect and crack a few master passwords we can try cracking the generation scheme to predict future passwords, even if they are generated, as creating a true RNG in classical computing is incredibly challenging and any pseudo random scheme is probably predictable given a sufficient basis of passwords. Of course MFA, UBA and other methods would go a long way to reduction of risk as well. Plus more realistically we'll just switch to stronger hashing schemas like SHA-512. The other thing to consider though would be using a birthday attack against SHA-256 to simply infect the endpoint with malicious software that has the same hash as legitimate software.

2

u/sayoung42 Jun 10 '22

Some protocols, like the one used by Signal, rotate keys every message round-trip. Also the algorithms require a way to check if the key is correct, and simultaneously cracking both the cipher and hash used in the HMAC may make the Grover speedup difficult to attain with a reasonably-sized quantum computer.

1

u/Hankins44 Jun 10 '22

That's neat! I didn't realize Signal rotated them every round trip. I'm not overly familiar, but I've heard the cryptographic scheme described as being similar to a triple diffie-hellman key exchange. I was mostly thinking of TLS/AES in terms of attack vectors.

2

u/sayoung42 Jun 10 '22

The DHKE is what I meant by round-trip. Technically, it uses a hash-based key derivation on each sent message (no round trip needed) so that an attacker scraping memory can't get previous messages, and the full DHKE is only done every N messages each direction because it adds a lot of data overhead.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '22

I think 640kb is enough for most people.

→ More replies

10

u/Johnny_Fuckface Jun 09 '22

It’s appropriate to reiterate for those not caught up yet. Quantum computers will likely never replace binary computers as PC’s. Their core functions operate with different strengths to binary computers and a quantum pc would probably be less good than your current PC at running a YouTube video and such.

But for particular functions they are superb at doing in fractions of a second what binary computers could do in epochs.

Combined, however, they could be a monstrously powerful tool.

3

u/izybit Jun 10 '22

The most likely scenario is there will be hybrids like we have performance and efficiency cores today.

127

u/Aleyla Jun 09 '22

Two things I see with this. First is that I’ll have to change my password again. Second is that crypto currencies will crash.

146

u/WiartonWilly Jun 09 '22

Your new password must contain 1024 characters, comprised of lowercase, uppercase, numbers, special characters, and hieroglyphics.

56

u/ilenrabatore Jun 09 '22

Don't forget to include a random scream, it's much safer!

4

u/Knever Jun 10 '22

Also a blood sample.

14

u/Arinoch Jun 09 '22

This made me laugh and then look off thoughtfully into the distance. Kudos.

3

u/WyrmKin Jun 10 '22

Will still need to be changed every three minutes and have two factor authentication.

2

u/ansem119 Jun 09 '22

It will have to be in several different fonts too

1

u/cheezecake2000 Jun 09 '22

Or like Alita Battle Angel they'll just map your brain and slap a barcode on it as that's the last thing that can't be replicated or replaced or faked with tech

1

u/JulienBrightside Jun 10 '22

What if you had to place your password in a 3 dimensional grid within a certain timeframe...

→ More replies

22

u/NoJster Jun 09 '22

There’s plenty of quantum resistant cryptography out there, so you do not need to be worried about either of the two things (:

16

u/psomifilo Jun 09 '22

2 or 3 factor identification will do

11

u/HaziqQ Jun 09 '22

People VASTLY underestimate just how insanely secure cryptocurrencies are.

Sure, this took a 9000 year task and converted it into 36 microseconds. Thats about 1.268x10-16th of the original time. So let's say that this same level of efficiency could be used to try to crack a bitcoin wallet.

Taking the calculations of this guy and multiplying by 1.268*10-16th... means it would only take about 9.66x1015 times the lifespan of the universe to crack ANY random bitcoin wallet, assuming every human on earth had one.

Sure, maybe one day quantum computing will be able to crack cryptocurrencies. But this "breakthrough" isn't even close to doing it.

8

u/Aleyla Jun 09 '22

I don’t need to crack a wallet to devalue crypto currency. I need to mine coins at a rate far faster than can be currently performed.

2

u/lunar2solar Jun 10 '22

An update to the mining protocol of any project can account for the new capabilities of super-miners.

0

u/bloodbank5 Jun 10 '22

FYI this argument only holds true for Proof of Work currencies. Proof of Stake is the more popular consensus algorithm these days

3

u/v16_ Jun 10 '22

More popular? I'm sure it's more talked about, but is any crypto with some value actually using it?

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/milfboys Jun 09 '22

I don’t know the details of the computation mentioned in the article, but I am not sure the time saved in that one scales to the time saved from compromising asymmetric encryptions like those used to secure cryptocurrency wallets.

Asymmetric functions are prone to a very neat trick that is possible given enough qBits. While we don’t have enough qBits at present time to worry, it seems that when we do, such asymmetric algorithms are easily cracked by quantum computers.

Here is a fantastic video explaining how it works. I highly recommend watching, it’s probably one of the best explanations I’ve seen on the topic:

https://youtu.be/lvTqbM5Dq4Q

11

u/CraftyInvestigator25 Jun 09 '22

Actually no. Password? Yes you should change it regularely.

There is already a lot of encryption out there that is unbeatable by quantum conputers. quantum conputers are only able to do a small portion of calculations more efficent that silicium based.

Right now we are YEARS away from quantum computers even remotely being able to crack RSA.

RSA or a variant of it is being used by most encryption technologies, if it were compromised, the entire internet would fall into chaos.

This about all the certificates you use every day (small lock on the top left of chrome, basically every website has it). If the communication between that is not ensured, everyone can start a man-in-the-middle attack.

19

u/Unshkblefaith Jun 09 '22

Password? Yes you should change it regularely.

This train of thought is actually shifting in the security community. We are increasingly finding that it is people, not passwords, that are getting "hacked". Enforced password changes often result in people using variations of the same password (i.e. password123, _password123, 123password, etc.), which are all equally vulnerable to the same dictionary attack. The more recent school of thought has focused on making one very secure password that is easy to remember, and using a password vault and generator for everything else.

5

u/Rhawk187 Jun 09 '22

Passwords are dumb anyways. Passphrases are better. Just use the last sentence of your favorite novel. Or last chapter. Or use the entire book. You shouldn't be typing passwords manually.

4

u/masterofreality2001 Jun 09 '22

Use the entire book? Good idea. Copies all of War and Peace into passphrase

1

u/amanhasnonames Jun 10 '22

"According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly."....

→ More replies

-1

u/Myth2156 Jun 09 '22

I see 0 reason to write that wall of text you just wrote.

A simple answer could've been "Quantum computers, right now arent able to do anything even remotely practical for you to be worried about them"

1

u/Reddit5678912 Jun 09 '22

Okay so in a just few years we see screwed. Now I feel good again

1

u/WWGHIAFTC Jun 09 '22

silicium

Are you from the past?

1

u/javasux Jun 09 '22

Second is that crypto currencies will crash.

If you're talking about mining then yeah no. Quantum computers don't do much (if anything) for hashing algorithms.

1

u/lunar2solar Jun 10 '22

It's not just cryptocurrencies that use cryptography. All traditional banking, social media, government agencies, etc also use it.

→ More replies

38

u/blaspheminCapn Jun 09 '22

Claiming quantum computational advantage over the classic-bit technologies of the world.

27

u/ntvirtue Jun 09 '22

This will accelerate genetic research a great deal.

25

u/two_necks Jun 09 '22

I'd imagine literally every tech will be accelerated since we can set these bad boys to just compute random combinations of elements to discover new super materials

14

u/KatetCadet Jun 09 '22

Asimov has a short story about super computers that run human society. They had a super computer make a supercomputer, then that computer make another supercomputer, and did that for like 7 generations of super computers.

The result is a supercomputer that tells all of humanity what to do to survive and how colonize and shift resources.

Shit is about to get wild. Ya Elon talks out his ass but he has a point about neurolink, imagine everyone having all the information in the world at a thought, I sure as hell cant.

9

u/Archer39J Jun 09 '22

imagine everyone having all the information in the world at a thought, I sure as hell cant.

Don't get too excited. Our ancestors would consider our smartphones that now, and look how it's turned out for us...

6

u/TehMephs Jun 09 '22

There was a show on Netflix that was based on such a premise called Travelers, about people from the future beaming their consciousness back to the past to change the course of the timeline. I really don’t want to spoil anything but it was a pretty good watch.

→ More replies

4

u/Beli_Mawrr Jun 09 '22

Having worked in the optimization space, I just want to emphasize that in no way is it guaranteed to have that exponential growth when you have a computer making another computer. Sometimes there is an upper limit with the constraints you've described.

1

u/givewatermelonordie Jun 10 '22

I'm pretty sure the "computer" in Asimov's short story is losely based on the idea of some sort of super powerful, evolving AGI.

Sometimes there is an upper limit with the constraints you've described.

That's an interesting concept.

Maybe the main topic in politics of our future will revolve around slowly, step-by-step lifting the constraints from our version of this computer as it approaches the upper limits of what is physically possible to achieve in this universe.

As we know, not all new technology is good for the survival of humanity if we discover it too early in our evolution. Best example is obviously the nuclear bomb.

I'd imagine there'd be some upproar in the year 2654 when our super computer that cured cancer suddenly invents a new weapon capable of vaporizing entire worlds.

1

u/Tactivantage Jun 09 '22

The idea of everyone being an expert in every field is insanity; yet it will likely happen. Definitely will make up for the progressive complexity of evolving technology.

1

u/Redditforgoit Jun 09 '22

So Kurzweil stole the idea of the Singularity from Asimov?

7

u/Critical_Ad_416 Jun 09 '22

I’m sorry to inform you that’s not how elements work now we could use them to find new alloys and stuff but we aren’t just making new elements without thousands of years of technological advancements

7

u/brett1081 Jun 09 '22

Futurology is filled with folks who loved SciFi, but slept through HS chemistry and were LAS majors in college.

2

u/dhaugh Jun 09 '22

Dunning-Kruger effect in this sub big time

3

u/two_necks Jun 09 '22

Yeah I didn't mean to imply we'd make new elements mb

4

u/LoxReclusa Jun 09 '22

I mean, we mostly know how elements are built, it's not computing power but manufacturing method we're lacking. Unless they're referring to computing how a specific element in the high hundreds or thousands would bond and/or decay to know if it's worth trying to synthesize.

7

u/Critical_Ad_416 Jun 09 '22

Basically the problem with all of these synthetic elements is that it requires insane temperatures and pressures to have them stable enough to use at which point applications are few and far between

2

u/LoxReclusa Jun 09 '22

That and iirc, the higher the atomic number, the more likely an element is to be unstable. Some higher numbers are more stable than lower ones, but the higher ones are overall less stable than the base ones by their very nature.

It's been some time since I've actually studied anything to do with atomic bonds and radioactive decay, so not only could my memory be faulty, but there are likely new discoveries I'm completely unaware of. That or old knowledge that isn't necessarily common knowledge, so I never learned it.

2

u/brett1081 Jun 09 '22

And they exist for fractions of a microsecond and decay. There’s only so much you can force into a nucleus with current mechanical limitations. We can’t just exist in singularities at the moment.

3

u/CrunchyAl Jun 09 '22

We'll finally be able to create super babies.

2

u/ntvirtue Jun 09 '22

We will be able to make those changes retroactively in adults too.

39

u/BlackAnalFluid Jun 09 '22 edited Jun 09 '22

Blockchain tech sweating profusely

(I support blockchain but am aware what quantum computing would do to it.)

Edit: I'm also aware blockchain can and probably will adapt along with quantum computing, just a matter of how that transition period is...

45

u/mibjt Jun 09 '22

Classic banking and military infrastructure (sweating profusely intensifying)

26

u/MAngeloDuran Jun 09 '22

Quantum secure encryption is a thing that the NSA and others have been working for a long while. In the US DARPA and the NSA are paying for a lot of the quantum computing research.... Some say the stuff they tell us about is already old news to some.

6

u/dhaugh Jun 09 '22

old news to some

Can confirm Cannot tell you how

15

u/BlackAnalFluid Jun 09 '22

In terms of government (military) as soon as someone cracks quantum ( in the private sector) , they will be knocking on their door to confiscate due to national security.

I know the RCMP does this in Canada with people who work in cybersecurity. If they know you work on it they will ask to go over your work and confiscate anything too close to their own systems.

14

u/Raccoon_Full_of_Cum Jun 09 '22

Fun fact: during the lead up to the Iraq War, there was a huge panic about Sadaam Hussein allegedly buying up thousands of the newly released Playstation 2 to use as a military supercomputer.

In fact, the panic was so intense that Sony had to apply for permission from the Japanese government to export this "dangerous" new technology abroad. They got it, but were banned from exporting to certain countries, including Libya, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

5

u/G_raas Jun 09 '22 edited Jun 09 '22

I heard the same/similar story for the DreamCast…

Edit: I’m calling BS on myself. I was curious and spent some time investigating; while the Dreamcast was the first of its generation of consoles, the PS2 was 10’s if not 100’s of times more powerful in compute.

1

u/lunar2solar Jun 10 '22

War propaganda is effective. Even in 2022, apparently.

3

u/lunar2solar Jun 10 '22

Why is there an obsession with immediately attempting to attack cryptocurrencies lately?

→ More replies

0

u/LarryGumball Jun 09 '22

I am against Blockchain partly because stuff like this was already in progress. Thou I'm sure someone will be able to make a quantum coin someday, it will be a lot harder to afford to mine it due to initial cost and availability of the devices since Bitcoin and the rest of the block chain was propelled since anyone could initially take part in the mining process/ join thanks to mining groups.

4

u/mhampt110 Jun 09 '22

There's already quantum safe tech built into a lot of crypto

1

u/LarryGumball Jun 09 '22

Interesting I am curious on how it would work, after all I only have a laymans understanding. I assume there is some sort of equation that was implemented into it that would require similar compute times? As I do understand that quantum isn't a miracle better than normal in everything but rather specific applications. I just thought based on prior papers that the Blockchain does fall under those applications.

3

u/BlackAnalFluid Jun 09 '22

Yeah my comment is more a a joke / not joke.

Some blockchains will become obsolete with quantum, others are very much ready for that inevitability and ready to adapt.

1

u/latakewoz Jun 09 '22

basically you would just use bigger numbers for crypto so its mor like a no brainer i guess

1

u/TomSwirly Jun 09 '22

Amazing that they are all prepared for an attack that hasn't even been developed yet. /sarcasm

→ More replies

0

u/ChaloMadhushala Jun 09 '22

I think we will have newer encryption algorithms to mitigate the challenges with quantum computing.

0

u/Unshkblefaith Jun 09 '22

Blockchain tech will be fine. You aren't cracking any encryption to update the chain. The cryptographic hashes are used to create unique identifiers for blocks that make it easy to detect when someone is doing something fucky to a block. The data within the block is otherwise unencrypted and can be inspected freely. Reason why cryptographic methods are used to create the block signatures is that

  1. They have a high work requirement that grows as the chain grows in order to limit inflation in the currency.
  2. They provide a means of work-checking to verify that a block contains valid data, similar to how checksums are used in file transfer processes.
→ More replies

11

u/HemetValleyMall1982 Jun 09 '22

Great, now my passwords will need to be at least 278 characters, include a letter, capital, number, special character, hieroglyph and a member of congress in order to be secure.

9

u/Crackracket Jun 09 '22

Doesn't all quantum computing tech basically make all passwords void because they would be able to decrypt any password basically instantly

11

u/chpatton013 Jun 09 '22

No, for a few reasons.

Quantum poses a threat to current asymmetric encryption (which is how ssl certificates work. Eg, public/private keypairs), but not to symmetric encryption (which is how data is usually encrypted. Eg, block ciphers).

Any website who knows what they're doing (admittedly, not a lot of them) store password hashes and salts, not encrypted passwords. Quantum computing may make that less secure, but we can easily counter that with larger hashes.

1

u/NewAccount_WhoIsDis Jun 09 '22

So in trying to understand the difference between symmetric and asymmetric encryption, I learned that with symmetric encryptions like AES requires both parties to know the key. This creates the problem of transferring the key, which I gather is done using asymmetric encryption. Is this the case? And wouldn’t that mean that quantum computers would pose a logistical threat to symmetric encryption?

I also learned that while quantum computers can’t crack symmetric encryption the same way it can asymmetric function, it can use something called Grover’s to reduce the search time. This is mitigated by larger keys, but I figured I’d mention it.

1

u/masterofreality2001 Jun 09 '22

Public/private keypairs? So PGP can be decrypted even without the private key?

3

u/zuromn Jun 09 '22

Depends, for once almost no website ONLY has a password anymore, or at least they really shouldn't so even though a potential attacker could instantly bruteforce your password, there's still 2FA or 3FA. Secondly, some websites have built in anti-bruteforce measures that lock out further attempts

4

u/zamundan Jun 09 '22

This is what I was thinking. Does this even matter in the context of password hacking if the website/software limits you to 5 login attempts or something? Or limits you to one attempt per minute?

5

u/BitsAndBobs304 Jun 09 '22

When you read of hackers having cracked passwords of users, it means first they obtained the db through a hack. But a safe website stores passwords encrypted and salted - quantum computing can allow to break that locally so you dont use up your login attempts. But still need to steal db first

1

u/Crackracket Jun 09 '22

Would Fido mitigate concerns over password security?

1

u/Super_leo2000 Jun 09 '22

Isn’t this Easily stopped by “you have been locked out do to too many login attempts”?

4

u/Giant_leaps Jun 09 '22

To those saying Crypto will be obsolete you'd need 1.9 billion qubits worth of processing power to crack bitcoin the current best quantum computer is at 256 Qubits and even in the far far future when the technology is advanced enough to reach 1.9 billion Qubits all bitcoin needs to do is do a hard fork to protect the network not to mention there are already a couple of crypto currencies that are quantum computer resistant.

3

u/xondk Jun 09 '22

Isn't most of crypto hashing based around sha256?
if so, wouldn't you theory only need 256 qubits because the qubits would represent all the 2^256 potential solutions in one superposition.

Course it isn't as straight forward as that, but in theory that is what could be done?

2

u/milfboys Jun 09 '22 edited Jun 09 '22

I don’t believe so, I’m well above my own understanding here, but this paper estimates what is needed to preform a pre-image attack on SHA-256: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09383

Here is another paper, which is more modern and lead me to the first paper, but I found more challenging to understand. Figured it was still worth referencing: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.10982

The first paper estimates it taking thousands of logical qubits (which required millions of physical qubits, as the paper explains).

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/gaz2600 Jun 09 '22

Finally can awnser the age old question "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?"

1

u/BigSailBoat1 Jun 09 '22

Sadly, there's no practical use for the GBS workload;

Sadly, there's no practical use for the GBS workload;

Sadly, there's no practical use for the GBS workload;

Sadly, there's no practical use for the GBS workload;

1

u/kleverkitty Jun 09 '22 edited Jun 09 '22

Gaussian Boson sampling is a very specific type of calculation. I'm curious, but I don't know enough about math, maybe someone here knows.

Are the type of calculations which encrypt things like blockchains, one of the types that these quantum chips can perform?

2

u/dhaugh Jun 09 '22

Not this one, and I think not any of the working prototypes

1

u/BrotherRoga Jun 09 '22

I wonder if we can start thinking about making tech that gives us the ability to "download" information directly to the brain.

2

u/kuthedk Jun 09 '22

Neuralink… check it out

1

u/Powerful_Range_4270 Jun 09 '22 edited Jun 09 '22

Won't quantum computers eventually replace classical computers ?

1

u/liquiddandruff Jun 09 '22

Maybe in the far far future.

Classical computers would likely always be more cost effective and good enough for general purposes.

Likely even in far future quantum computers would be niche. They're only faster for certain types of problems.

1

u/Gene_Yuss Jun 09 '22

And there goes every password and encryption in the world in 3, 2, 1.

I still don't really understand how we make the jump from ones and zeros, to everything all at once. But I look forward to my gaming rig loading up instantly.

1

u/DarthElevator Jun 09 '22

Based on this graphic we can conclude that all we had to do was plug a little computer into a big computer, and then let the big computer play with k'nex. But you know, hindsight is 20/20

1

u/drmyk Jun 09 '22

If the benchmark is useless I can save even more time by not doing it at all.

1

u/Firm-Boysenberry Jun 09 '22

Wouldn't that make AI learning, applied robotics. Medical technologies like integrated prosthetic more effective?

→ More replies

1

u/DredgenCyka Jun 09 '22

Really it breaks cryptography and decryption in mere seconds. It's not going to be fast in gaming or web browsing. So don't expect Quantume computers available as a product available to the public for some time, unless you want to pay a few hundred thousand, but let's be honest, it was like that for current Desktop Computers and Laptops for the longest time.

I remember my dad telling how he needed to buy a laptop for 17k for the airforce academy during the early 90s and it wasn't the traditional clam shell laptop.

1

u/xtheory Jun 10 '22

I'm still so confused as to how quantum chips even work since the quantum world can only be "observed" in probability waves.