The end of encryption (We are fucked)

So jump to 8192-bit?

...

This

I'm confused on if they're already here or not: venturebeat.com/2019/02/27/d-wave-previews-quantum-computing-platform-with-over-5000-qubits/

White Revolution is the Only Solution

Sure, that will be nice for the future generations. But we all encrypted our stuff using current tech, and you can't put that toothpaste back in its bottle. All data that was ever transmitted encrypted with current algorithms will be compromised shortly.

People don't want to accept it but the only solution is to physically take over the infrastructure (ISPs etc). You can't combat a social problem with a purely technological solution.

Passive retention of encrypted data by 3-letter agencies is what worries me the most. Take Signal for example. Even if its encryption is secure and sound, nothing stops CIA niggers from getting access to Signal's servers and installing a sniffer that would intercept and save every encrypted packet. Once quantum computing becomes viable, they can break all the messages they have intercepted.

I believe there is not enough storage in the entire world to indefinitely store every packet transmitted on the internet, so if such secret retention programs do exist, they will focus on a handful of well-known services. You don't need to run such a program against Google, for example, because Google is happy to give all the data voluntarily. But it makes total sense to intercept Signal, those who host their own mail servers, HTTPS traffic to sites of a certain nature, IRC servers.

A countermeasure against that would be to mix valuable data with a lot of uninteresting garbage. Signal doesn't do it. All traffic to Signal's servers is interesting, and there is not that much of it. But if you host a forum on Tor, the CIA niggers won't be able to intercept only the packets destined to your hidden service. They would need to intercept all Tor traffic. Is it viable to continuously save and retain all Tor traffic nowadays? I don't know.

This lad gets it.

At least symmetric encryption algorithms like AES won't be affected in a significant way. But I agree that for everything else we need to switch to quantum resistant encryption schemes as soon as possible. How much do you want to bet that all the pozzed tech will delay this process as long as possible so that Uncle Sam can have their back door.

That's a computer that does computation using quantum mechanics. Actual quantum computers like which are needed to break crypto require there to be no noise. While you can try to reduce the amount of noise by using more qbits / repeating the computation multiple times this will only allow some quantum algorithms to work and not others that are more sensitive to noise.

Retard, the NSA already owns datacenters with enough capacity to store every packet on the internet ever sent in the history of the internet.

They aren't. The """quantum computers""" that already exist are expensive toys that can't even remotely do the things that make quantum computing so interesting (they keep shifting goalposts) and we have next to no idea how to improve them so that they do. D-Wave is infamous for overselling their claims.

Shor's algorithm makes breaking RSA keys polynomial in time. You won't be able to gain much by increasing the key size.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithm
log(N) is the key size. So, let's say you jump from 4096- to 8192-bit RSA. You increased the key size by 2. It now takes 4 times more time to crack your key using Shor's algorithm. But it takes much more time for classical computers to generate and use such 8192-bit keys.

Agreed. But I don't think that taking over the infrastructure would save us from the problem described in .

You are right. But AES is mostly used in two ways: 1) as a symmetric cipher for quantum-insecure key exchange methods; 2) as a key generated by a KDF from a passphrase. I'm not sure what quantum computing means for contemporary KDFs.

Not really. Producing data storage is much more expensive than sending shit over Ethernet.

At least for right now, quantum computers are no threat. There are two major constraints for this to work, the number of bits and coherence time. They need enough bits to be able to even do the calculation and they need those bits to stay linked to each other for the entire operation.

All of this encryption controversy is just cover for the real application of these things though, which funnily enough nobody talks about. Running neural network simulations with grover's algorithm(or something like it). In essence, it's a way of generating correct answers to problems which can be solved with guessing. That would allow them to eliminate most of the training time of these networks.

Both right and wrong. For now, they are not a threat. But a hypothetical quantum computer created in 10 years is a threat to the data you exchange today.

Actually, new encryption will be developed to combat quantum attackers.
The claim that it's the end of encryprion is just silly.
We can use quantum computers to power new encryption.

Quantum computers won't necessarily be good for creating fast quantum-secure cryptography. Quantum-secure cryptography can be created even with classical computers. And we need it now, not when quantum computing becomes a thing.

lol actually thinking you understand how the NSA operates.

You are so retarded.

And who offers it?

Does anyone know if the signing of gpg will be affected by phone keys, ie can someone with a quantum computer sign with Linus's key?
Anyways, just use public key crypto to negotiate an evolution for a shared Master, and send everything buried in stego and sent in clearly marked BitTorrent traffic.

????
Stop talking, retard.

Bad markov chain tbh.

Im excited, they can decrypt 100s of tbs of PFS encrypted traffic. But maybe there are better uses for quantum computers like solving protein folding and other hard math problems first. Just imagine the highest end computer in existence being used for decrypting peoples pornhub traffic and shitposts. 10/10 clownworld certified. I would imagine even with a quantum computer cracking dh all day it would still take years to crack all the handshakes. Fuck curing cancer lol.

1. who made and owns the internet?
2. expect the unexpected.

fify
git gud fgt

First they will have to correct Quantum Physics from top to bottom, as they have theories that don't work across the board now.
I recommend reading Miles Mathis regarding this.
milesmathis.com/

Upload the video here (use youtube-dl to download it) or upload to an alt youtube.
Fucking newfags

milesmathis.com/pi2.html
LOL
milesmathis.com/ln.html
milesmathis.com/log.html

...

You're the one being laughing on, user.

ok, kiddo

milesmathis.com/lemma.html
Wew lad, it's been a while since I've seen some classic mathematical crankery.

NTRU and SIDH or GTFO

For what it is worth, Signal uses Google Cloud Messaging as a transport service, so while theoretically by design all Google ever sees is encrypted payloads, it requires the big G to run (unless you've built your own, and are running your own server, and all your friends are on that server).

>milesmathis.com/lemma.html
not-sure-if-professionally-retarded-or-trolling.jpg

Attached: tech-milesmath.png (714x733, 110.56K)

Welcome to the wonderful world of mathematics cranks, enjoy your stay.

damn.

>milesmathis.com/

Attached: wtf-dude.png (1861x893, 927.27K)

easy: stop using encryption. terry was right. the future of information is not through networked technology.
its distribution will be organized through the networks and transported by the postal service.

There won't be any quantum computers, because quantum mechanics is a non-nonsensical religious bullshit and mental gymnastics.
invidio.us/watch?v=m3zBckJfZ18

Educate yourselves: eprint.iacr.org/2017/314.pdf

Hate to break it to you m8: Quantum computers already exist.

No, they don't, they are just called "quantum" by the stupid niggers like you.
It's plain computers which just model quantum mechanics. It's a simulation based research.
There are no machines which actually take advantage of a quantum superposition or any other QM magic. Hence Shor's algorithm will never be efficient on them.

Stop embarrassing yourself. Quantum computers exist although they are in their infancy.
You should really consider doing some basic research before calling someone a stupid nigger lest you look like a stupid nigger.

...

If only you had arguments.

Wew lad, it seems you don't have arguments either.

So you mean to say that Newton was wrong? Or that you didn't understand what 'approaches' meant?

Actually, they do not. Quantum is a marketing name and they don't do anything Quantum.

For the retards, start reading his papers from the beginning. First is the correction of Calculus itself, and if you don't know that, you're not prepared to engage in any of his other papers, as you wouldn't​ be able to understand anything and your cognitive dissonance would kick in.
milesmathis.com/are.html
Then read this:
milesmathis.com/quant.html
milesmathis.com/20c.pdf

Reality is a simulation

Quantum computers don't exist, you negro. Go watch CNN and read Gizmodo, your place isn't here.
scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/quantum-computing-as-a-field-is-obvious-bullshit/

...

Holy shit! I wrote what I meant on the diagram and you didn't understand it! Newton was right, and whoever wrote that is a retard making false/dumb/retarded assumptions that are obviously false.
It is simple mathematical notation for "Angle ABD tends to 180° as B approaches A"
That angle ABD is ALREADY LARGER THAN a right angle, and INCREASES as B approaches A. Saying "the angle ABD approaches becoming a right angle" is below nigger tier stupid.

is Mathis, calling it now.

No, you're retarded. You don't understand what approaches mean, because you drawn it wrong.

I'm not, really. He basically don't post anywhere besides his site.

Let me correct you now, before you keep being a negro:
It does that because B travels in the Circle's perimeter.
You ot understanding that is beyond belief - that graph was explicitly made for dynamic movement.

sorry faggot
(me)
(me)
(me)
is not (user)

I didn't draw it, I took a screen shot of the authors drawing.
checkmate faggot.

You're retarded, see this:
When I said 'drawing' I referred to your paint job.
And your interpretation is not correct either.
You simply didn't understand a thing he said and embarrassed yourself.
You probably didn't even read anything, just jumped to the pictures, which is incredibly sad.
Also, I don't care who you are.

And humble yourself, idiot. He never claims π=4 for static situations, it only works for dynamic ones.
He even corrected a NASA equation with that and was thanked for that.

Don't think you're hot shit if you can't even read a graph.

When B and A are almost co-incident (i.e. they are nearly touching)
Angle ABD = 179.9999999999999999999
Angle BAD = 0.0000000000000000000005 (Newton was right)
Angle BDA = 0.0000000000000000000005

Wow, you just proved him wrong. His position was static, not dynamic.
Read the paper on the calculus properly.i

sounds about right

Simulation of what? You do realize that simulating something means to facilitate a simplified model of that something? So, again, if reality is a simulation, then what exactly is it simulating?

You really are a stupid nigger.

i disagree. i think this will set us free. if we can't be safe then neither can ((they)). Welcome to cyberpunk. Pirate boxes. Private lans. Mesh networks. USB dead drops. etc etc.

It's simple. We use quantum encryption.

Yeah some nigger albanians trying to make a quick buck have them to, huh?