[ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017

[Brent Allsop]

All you quantum computer experts.

I know next to nothing about quantum computers.  All I know is that some
people claim they will be able to render crypto currency security no longer
secure.  What would you guys give the odds that something like quantum
computers could sometimes make crypto currencies not work.  And by "not
work" I mean even if the crypto currencies significantly increase the size
of the keys, which I would think would be easy for crypto currencies to do,
i.e. even a quantum computer could never solve a 10K byte key right?

Brent






On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 6:28 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:33 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ​>​
>> Well, nobody has built a proper quantum computer yet, (not counting
>> D-Wave), so we don't know yet.
>> ​
>> Current estimate is 4 to 5 years.
>>
>
> A D-wave type machine might be able to solve some problems and do so
> quantum mechanically but it wouldn't be Turing complete and be able to work
> on any problem as a general purpose computer can. Google and IBM have set
> there sights higher and are working on a true Turing complete Quantum
> Computer that would use
> ​s​
> uperconducting loops. Microsoft is working on the most advanced and
> riskiest design of all, a Topological Quantum Computer; it would use 2
> dimensional
> ​
> quasi
> ​​
> particles called non-abelian anyons.
>
> ​
> The huge advantage non-abelian anyons
> ​
> ha
> ​ve​
> is that they would be vastly less
> ​s​
> susceptible to
> ​​
> quantum decoherence
> ​
> than anything else, so much so that a
> ​
> Topological Quantum Computer might be able to work at room temperature.
> ​Not only do you need to cool ​a
> superconducting loop
> ​ but because of ​
> ​​
> quantum decoherence
> ​ it only produces the correct results about 99.9% of the time. A large
> quantum computer would need a about ten nines so Google and IBM's machine
> would need massive amounts of expensive quantum error correcting circuitry.
> Microsoft's N
> on-abelian anyons
> ​would give you about seven nines of precision right at the start so much
> less
> correcting circuitry
> ​ would be needed​
> ​.​
>
> ​T​
> he only disadvantage is that physicists are only 95% certain that
> non-abelian anyons
> ​ exist.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170227/24a6bbf5/attachment.html>