Mohta-san,
With all due respect for the fact English is not your first language. I read what you wrote but was unable to parse it.
My objection to what you wrote is that you are claiming 'proof'. I have a research degree in experimental particle physics. You certainly do not have proof for your position at this time.
To be fair, there are claims being made on the pro-QC side which also go far beyond what has been proved. Witness the large number of implementations of Shorr's algorithm for factoring that effectively make use of the factors as an input.
As a designer of cryptographic infrastructures, it is clear that it is highly unlikely there will be a general purpose quantum computer capable of breaking X25519 available within one or even two decades. But unlikely is not the same as proven beyond doubt to be impossible.
* It is therefore prudent to consider means of hardening an infrastructure so that it is resilient to quantum cryptanalysis.
* The possibility is nowhere near as serious as to demand that we stop trying to use public key cryptography just in case someone succeeds.
Phill
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:44 PM Masataka Ohta <mohta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Experiment will show who is right - if someone can work out the experiment
> to build.
Wrong.
Read the draft, which says:
experimental confirmation of
Shor's quantum error correction should success, as long as the input
qubit to an error correction circuit is unentangled with other qubits
outside of the circuit, which is not the case when quantum algorithms
are run on quantum computers relying on aggressive entanglement
between qubits.
Masataka Ohta
