pull down to refresh

215 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 21 May \ on: Why I don't think there will be a secret quantum attack on bitcoin science bitcoin
They jump at the chance to announce any small breakthrough and advancement.

It's worse then that, they announce non-breakthroughs and no advancement. It's literally not real, there are only scams inferring it could be real.

write
compose
19 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 21 May

you know, that actually weakens my thesis because it introduces noise to the signal

reply
2 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 21 May

It's more of a point of order since there is no signal to begin with, its not just that breakthroughs are noised by non-breakthroughs, but that there are no breakthroughs at all.

reply
134 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 21 May

I've been spending a couple of weeks going over xwing (MLKEM768+X25519) for a hybrid KEM and even for a hybrid solution that is enforcing both the DH and the ML side, I still see some potential risks[1] with ideas that may or not have caveats we simply don't know about yet. These are sitting in the optimizations they're doing.

So on the one hand we have massive, non-tangible FOMO and on the other, no immediate implementation path for serious encryption, and a standard-to-be that may weaken versus existing DH-based solutions. The risks coming with rushed decisions is high right now. If it's all a psyop... the risk is higher.

  1. besides the issue that there is no good implementation path for either crypto.subtle or webauthn at the moment. ↩

reply