The microblog: 2018.03.23 02:28:44

2018.03.23 02:28:44 (976994119406014465) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (976985150469935104):

And you claim that these issues disappear when the gaps are atomic-scale? Where can I find a theorem that derives your claimed QKD non-leakage from the laws of physics without _assuming_ non-leakage? And how do you explain the evident contradiction with the holographic principle?


2018.03.22 23:53:42 (976955103587590149) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (976950136868925442):

Cages and shields are _not_ the same thing (see, e.g.,, and cages make the general QKD security issues easier to visualize. The bigger problem in this discussion is the constant switching from one bullshit claim to another.

2018.03.23 00:15:07 (976960495025565696) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":

They are the same up to quantitative difference. This paper soes not condradicts this. It shows, through a simple idealized 2d model that a Faraday cage should be modelled carefully. And a typical modern Faraday cage is closer to a metallic enclosure than to a literal cage

2018.03.23 00:30:38 (976964397104074752) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (976960495025565696):

The paper goes far beyond your characterization, as illustrated by, e.g., the paper's analysis of "the widespread misconception that the shielding is exponential" in the gap size etc.

2018.03.23 01:53:06 (976985150469935104) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":

The paper itself says "This Helmholtz equation model is highly simplified", and it indeed raises the valid point that a cage should be modelled properly, specially concerning the gaps (I actually shared the misconception Before reading the paper)