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: m5@vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Message Hash: ed04d89b4eb9530096ec5643f9b01fbfa8a2174e2a2b1a8bdc0b18ebbcf3e4a3
Message ID: <199403301756.AA01088@zoom.bga.com>
Reply To: <9403301459.AA18143@vail.tivoli.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-30 19:14:45 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 11:14:45 PST

Raw message

From: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 11:14:45 PST
To: m5@vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Subject: Re: Crypto and new computing strategies
In-Reply-To: <9403301459.AA18143@vail.tivoli.com>
Message-ID: <199403301756.AA01088@zoom.bga.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> 
> 
> Jim choate writes:
>  > While I can understand the commen wisdom such QM type machines are
>  > not a threat to the present cyrpto-cracking horsepower race I must
>  > admit I don't agree with it. First, historicaly (and emotionaly on
>  > my part) I have a hard time taking the  premise that the status quo
>  > will stay the status quo. I have this belief that some bright
>  > person is going to come along and blow all our pipe dreams away. 
>  > It has happened before and it WILL happen again, especially when
>  > you consider the resources available to the government. 
> 
> Remember, however, that advances in technology benefit encryptors as
> well as codebreakers.  Unless the "bright person" comes along and
> proves P == NP, there's still opportunity to develop strong
> cryptosystems.  (Indeed, if a bright person comes along and proves
> that P != NP, then things look pretty good.)
> 
> --
> | GOOD TIME FOR MOVIE - GOING ||| Mike McNally <m5@tivoli.com>       |
> | TAKE TWA TO CAIRO.          ||| Tivoli Systems, Austin, TX:        |
> |     (actual fortune cookie) ||| "Like A Little Bit of Semi-Heaven" |
> 
The problem w/ the whole N - NP approach is that is assumes that the QM
model behaves as we would expect it to, it doesn't. I think this is one of
those assumptions that are better left un-made. I have worked w/ enough QM
projects throug UT and Discovery Hall (Dr. Turner and Dr. Prigogine) that
I am not comfortable assuming the QM world even cares about the N or NP
issues we are debating.

Thread