News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Double encryption: Analyzing the NSA/GCHQ arguments against hybrids. Parent comment

Re:Double encryption: Analyzing the NSA/GCHQ arguments again... by Eisenstein on Wednesday January 03, 2024 @09:07AM (#38854193)
Except that isn't the argument I am making.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Double encryption: Analyzing the NSA/GCHQ arguments again... by hdhfjkrkrme on Wednesday January 03, 2024 @12:41PM (#38857000)
We have small quantum computers, we don't have big ones.

We have fusion power on small scale, we don't have it on commercial scale.

Seems to be the same argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Double encryption: Analyzing the NSA/GCHQ arguments again... by count on Wednesday January 03, 2024 @02:49PM (#38858892)
We have small, usable quantum computers and have grown them for years.

We have never had fusion power on a small scale (we have had fusion ignition/reaction, but never [afaik] generated usable power), let alone showed continuous growth in scale of that power over the years.

They're not the same. Fusion is a 'science' problem, quantum is (mostly) an 'engineering' problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Double encryption: Analyzing the NSA/GCHQ arguments again... by Eisenstein on Wednesday January 03, 2024 @03:11PM (#38859160)
Re-read my comment and then point out the spot where I advocated ceasing research and development of anything.
[ Parent | on HN ]