The microblog: 2018.03.25 01:52:23

2018.03.25 01:52:23 (977709747108532225) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (977277348482633741):

When people write papers claiming, e.g., that QKD "offers the ultimate security of the inviolability of a law of Nature for key distribution", are you saying that this isn't a claim that QKD is unbreakable? Or are you saying that these people aren't part of the QKD community?


2018.03.23 18:05:13 (977229793476399105) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (977081987163938816):

A black hole is a very strong potential well. Your naive belief that this hides information is wrong: see Hawking radiation, horizon fluctuatons, etc. The holographic principle says that all information in a volume of space is encoded on a faraway boundary.

2018.03.23 18:10:15 (977231061804634112) from Daniel J. Bernstein:

If you naively think you can hide inside a black hole (or a less extreme potential well) and roll quantum dice to fill up the space around you with new random numbers hidden from the outside, you're wrong. See Bekenstein's entropy bound.

2018.03.23 18:18:05 (977233031667830786) from Daniel J. Bernstein:

QKD proponents claim that the security of QKD is guaranteed by the laws of physics. What we see throughout this Twitter thread is proponents switching to weaker claims (yes, there's leakage, but _hopefully_ hard to invert) without admitting that the original claim is bullshit.

2018.03.23 21:14:11 (977277348482633741) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":

The QKD communitity do NOT claim that QKD is unbreakable, and hacking attacks are well discussed in the community since 2003, if not 1993. And don’t tell me noone ever claimed classical cryptography is “guaranteed by the law of mathematics”