[dogma1138]

Just to point it out this isn’t a jab at QC but rather a jab at project 11 and possibly the submission author, basically they failed to validate the submission properly and the code proves that the solution is classical.

Recovering a 17bit ecc key isn’t a challenge for current classical computers via brute force.

[holografix]

It’s a jab at QC and a right hook onto IBM’s snake oil selling chin.

[pseudohadamard]

Recovering a 17 bit ECC key isn't a challenge for a barking dog either.

[logicallee]

if the solution is faster than random it could still be a real solution on a quantum computer.

[PunchyHamster]

well, it's slower than random

[amoshebb]

“recovers every reported private key at statistically indistinguishable rates from the IBM hardware runs.”

[__float]

Did that mean success rate from multiple runs or speed for a single run?

[NewsaHackO]

OK, so what I don't get is that from the GitHub page, it seems like that statement is purposely misleading. For the 17-bit key, the quantum computer correctly recovered the key in it's single run, while urandom used 2/5 runs. At 5 runs, I don't think one could say the quantum calculation is definitely better with any confidence, but the reverse should also be true; he hasn't actually proven that urandom performed at an equivalent rate to the quantum calculation. The only thing I can think of is if he is saying that the original group should have done more runs on the quantum computer to prove it. But from the framing he is using, seems like he is disingenuously declaring that the quantum computer is equivalent to a random number generator.

[swiftcoder]

> seems like he is disingenuously declaring that the quantum computer is equivalent to a random number generator

He's not such a declaration - he is saying that the program is constructed in such a way that the quantum computer is irrelevant to the solution