← Back to context

Comment by OhMeadhbh

5 hours ago

In rebuttal, Peter Gutmann seems to think the progress towards quantum computing devices which can break commonly used public key crypto systems is not moving especially quickly: https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1237

That's not a rebuttal. The post references the paper and a rebuttal to it from an expert in the field.

  • >and a rebuttal to it from an expert in the field.

    while i agree with filippo, the way you worded this makes me think that you may not be aware that gutmann is also an expert in the field. so, if you are giving filippo weight because he is an expert, it is worth giving some amount to gutmann as well.

    • I apologize if I flippantly dismissed the fact that experts disagree. That was not my intention. I was trying to point out that OP does address the referenced counter-point post specifically.

      1 reply →

  • Damn. It's like I insulted Vault.

    Also, I went over Filippo's post again and still can't see where it references the Gutmann / Neuhaus paper. Are we talking about the same post?

    • From the abstract:

      > This paper presents implementations that match and, where possible, exceed current quantum factorisation records using a VIC-20 8-bit home computer from 1981, an abacus, and a dog.

      From the link:

      > Sure, papers about an abacus and a dog are funny and can make you look smart and contrarian on forums. But that’s not the job, and those arguments betray a lack of expertise[1]. As Scott Aaronson said[2]:

      > > Once you understand quantum fault-tolerance, asking “so when are you going to factor 35 with Shor’s algorithm?” becomes sort of like asking the Manhattan Project physicists in 1943, “so when are you going to produce at least a small nuclear explosion?”

      [1]: https://bas.westerbaan.name/notes/2026/04/02/factoring.html

      [2]: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9665#comment-2029013