2018.03.29 19:38:49 (979412577435480064) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (978757396284805121):
To be clear: You're saying that for decades the QKD community hasn't been making claims like "QKD as a cryptographic primitive offers security that is guaranteed by the laws of physics"? (To answer your question, the "law of Nature" quote I gave was from https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9504002.)
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?
2018.03.25 17:04:58 (977924307144855552) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":
I am unequivocally claiming that this claim is wrong, and contradicts what has been the consensus for decades (see e.g. the last sentence of §VI.K of this 2002 review by Gidin et al. https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.145 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101098 )
2018.03.27 14:46:21 (978614200946905088) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)" (977924307144855552):
Let me get this straight. You're agreeing that the quote I gave (from a 1995 QKD paper, no erratum ever issued) is falsely claiming QKD unbreakability, but you're claiming that for decades now the QKD community _hasn't_ been claiming QKD unbreakability?
2018.03.28 00:15:22 (978757396284805121) from "Frédéric Grosshans (@fgrosshans)":
QKD was not a mature field in 1995, and the understanding of security has vastly improved since. Both on technical side (1st comparable proof ~2003), but also on the cultural side: physicists have learned cryptography, and cryprographer physics. Btw, which paper ?