From: "J. Kent Hastings" <zeus@pinsight.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 01:07:38 PDT
To: "cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) 1995 Nanotechnology Conference
Message-ID: <199508230807.BAA25567@utopia.pinsight.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-- [ From: J. Kent Hastings * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --

On Tuesday, 22-Aug-95 11:00 PM, James A. Donald,
(jamesd@echeque.com) wrote:

>At 11:00 AM 8/21/95 -0800, J. Kent Hastings wrote:
>>Doesn't quantum coherence require molecular precision if it
>>is to work on 1024 bit PGP keys? If it works, such keys can 
>>be instantly factorized. It would be nice to follow that progress.

>It requires molecular precision if it is to work on anything interesting: 
Cracking >1024 bit keys is a long way down the road...[praises other
applications]

Tim says that quantum codebreaking and nanotech ain't gonna happen, 
because of things he explained in the past on the list, now available in 
the archive. I found a great Web version of the cypherpunks archive at http:
//www.hks.net/cpunks/index.html and will indeed catch up on the 
quantum coherence subject.

RSA Data Security printed an article in their newsletter, by one of the 
inventors of working quantum cryptography, which stated that there is 
a risk of cracking RSA because of efficient hardware factorization. Why 
would they make this up about their own product? OK Tim, I'll catch up 
before making further comments on quantum codebreaking. 

Now about nanotech: The Moore(?) scale mentioned here says the 
processing power of hardware capacity doubles every 12 or 18 months for 
a given amount of money. In about 20 years only nanotech will be on the 
curve. Will hardware progress just come to a grinding halt then or what?
What's going on here? I thought cpunx were pro-nanotechnology.

Kent
--
Check out Neil Schulman's new book, http://www.pinsight.com/~zeus/jneil/
J. Kent Hastings -- zeus@pinsight.com -- http://www.pinsight.com/~zeus/