cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-03-30 - Re: Crypto and new computing strategies

Header Data

From: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>
To: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Message Hash: 2418c9ce167f46ae941c1004a8c0b14b42d52426183ab4834e6f6400c5c1dfc0
Message ID: <199403301754.AA00993@zoom.bga.com>
Reply To: <9403301536.AA00533@ah.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-30 19:10:56 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 11:10:56 PST

Raw message

From: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 11:10:56 PST
To: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Subject: Re: Crypto and new computing strategies
In-Reply-To: <9403301536.AA00533@ah.com>
Message-ID: <199403301754.AA00993@zoom.bga.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


I am not shure that it has been demonstrated that a QM mechanis is necessarily
solely of a Turing architecture. When one considers the dependancy of electron
spin (for example) over distance (which happens to break the 'speed of light'
limit) there is sufficient reason (to my mind) to suspect that there will be
some additional funkyness going on here.

Also there is the potential to use neural networks at these levels (which are
not necessarily reducable to Turing models, the premise has never been proven)
which coupled w/ the speed of computation considerations leaves a lot to be
said for the security of all the existing 'time to crack' computations that I
have seen to date.

The bottem line is that this whole area is a unknown and if we persist in 
carrying unproven assumptions from the macro-world over into the QM model we
WILL be in for a nasty surprise.

I want to reiterate that I am not saying there is a threat, simply that what we
know about it know is not sufficiently strong enough in the 'proof' area to 
carry the weight of resolution some c-punks would like to assign it.

Beware, there be Ogres there...

Thread