That is not true. A spanning tree of physical links is sufficient to make a network where anyone can talk to anyone else.
The key ingredient here is entanglement swapping [1]. Entanglement between routers A and B can be merged with entanglement between routers B and C to form entanglement between A and C. This accumulates noise, but purification can be used at each merging step to push the noise back down to 1%.
So what transmitting a message looks like is a path between the two endpoints is selected and then entanglement swapping+purification is used to turn 1-hop entanglement into 2-hop entanglement, then into 4-hop, then etc until the entire path is spanned. Then purification+teleportation are used by the endpoints to move the message.
The recommendation is to not use QKD. This is the correct recommendation. QKD solves key agreement if you have an authenticated line. But authentication is the harder more crucial problem.
Here's an interesting related aside: the likely design of a practical quantum internet would make QKD totally trivial. What a quantum internet would do is deliver kinda-noisy entangled Bell pairs to endpoints that wanted to communicate. The endpoints would then purify [1] this kinda-noisy entanglement into actually-good entanglement (e.g. from 1% error to 0.0000000000001% error). The purified Bell pairs can then be consumed in order to transmit qubits [2]. However, because of the monogamy of entanglement [3], the purification process must detect and correct eavesdropping (or else fail to produce output). So, once you have a sufficiently purified Bell pair, it can be measured to get a bit that can be used as a one time pad. (That said, this does still assume you have an authenticated channel! Purification requires communication, because without authentication you can be man-in-the-middle'd.)
The dominant cost in Shor's algorithm is the elliptic curve point addition subroutine. That subroutine can be implemented using reversible classical gates. For that kind of implementation, approximate correctness can be verified by fuzz testing classical trajectories through the subroutine.
Note you could ask the same question about Shor's original paper: how did he show the algorithm works without running it? Running X just isn't the only way to analyze X.
This was exactly the premise of my sigbovik April Fool's paper in 2025 [1]: for small numbers, Shor's algorithm succeeds quickly when fed random samples. And when your circuit is too long (given the error rate of the quantum computer), the quantum computer imitates a random number generator. So it's trivial to "do the right thing" and succeed for the wrong reason. It's one of the many things that make small factoring/ecdlp cases bad benchmarks for progress in quantum computing.
I warned the project11 people that this would happen. That they'd be awarding the bitcoin to whoever best obfuscated that the quantum computer was not contributing (likely including the submitter fooling themselves). I guess they didn't take it to heart.
Good post. Entirely correct, and well known amongst quantum researchers, but under appreciated in general.
Grover attacks are very blatantly impractical. When someone describes Grover-type attacks in the same breath as Shor-type attacks, without caveats, that's a red flag.
> That graph suggests that even with the best error correction in the graph, it is impossible to factor RSA-4 with less then 10^4 qubits. Which seems very odd.
It's because the plot is assuming the use of error correction even for the smallest cases. Error correction has minimum quantity and quality bars that you must clear in order for it to work at all, and most of the cost of breaking RSA4 is just clearing those bars. (You happen to be able to do RSA4 without error correction, as was done in 2001 [0], but it's kind of irrelevant because you need error correction to scale so results without it are on the wrong trendline. That's even more true for the annealing stuff Scott mentioned, which has absolutely no chance of scaling.)
You say you don't see the uranium piling up. Okay. Consider the historically reported lifetimes of classical bits stored using repetition codes on the UCSB->Google machines [1]. In 2014 the stored bit lived less than a second. In 2015 it lived less than a second. 2016? Less than a second. 2017? 2018? 2019? 2020? 2021? 2022? Yeah, less than a second. And this may not surprise you but yes, in 2023, it also lived less than a second. Then, in 2024... kaboom! It's living for hours [4].
You don't see the decreasing gate error rates [2]? The increasing capabilities [3]? The ever larger error correcting code demonstrations [4]? The front-loaded costs and exponential returns inherent to fault tolerance? TFA is absolutely correct: the time to start transitioning to PQC is now.
The newest transaction mechanism (taproot; P2TR) exposes the public key of the receiver as part of the transaction. If it becomes more commonly used, the supply of bitcoins with exposed public keys would start going up again. See figure 5 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.28846#page=14 .
The DoS attack in this scenario is someone just submitting reasonable-looking but ultimately bad precommitments as fast as possible. The intuition is that precommitments must be hard to validate because, if there was an easy validation mechanism, you would have just used that mechanism as the transaction mechanism. And so all these junk random precommitments look potentially legitimate and end up being stored for later verification. So all you have to do to take down the system is fill up the available storage with junk, which (given the size of bot networks and the cost of storing something for a day) seems very doable.
Yes, that would be a concern. You could require a proof of work to submit a precommitment, so that DoSing was at least expensive to do. You could have some sort of deposit mechanism, where a precommitment would lock down 0.1 bitcoins (from a quantum-secure wallet) until the precommitment was used. I admit I'm glad I don't have to figure out those details.
You are assuming that progress on factoring will be smooth, but this is unlikely to be true. The scaling challenges of quantum computers are very front-loaded. I know this sounds crazy, but there is a sense in which the step from 15 to 21 is larger than the step from 21 to 1522605027922533360535618378132637429718068114961380688657908494580122963258952897654000350692006139 (the RSA100 challenge number).
Consider the neutral atom proposal from TFA. They say they need tens of thousands of qubits to attack 256 bit keys. Existing machines have demonstrated six thousand atom qubits [1]. Since the size is ~halfway there, why haven't the existing machines broken 128 bit keys yet? Basically: because they need to improve gate fidelity and do system integration to combine together various pieces that have so far only been demonstrated separately and solve some other problems. These dense block codes have minimum sizes and minimum qubit qualities you must satisfy in order for the code to function. In that kind of situation, gradual improvement can take you surprisingly suddenly from "the dense code isn't working yet so I can't factor 21" to "the dense code is working great now, so I can factor RSA100". Probably things won't play out quite like that... but if your job is to be prepared for quantum attacks then you really need to worry about those kinds of scenarios.
The best proposal I have heard for rescuing P2SH wallets after cryptographically relevant quantum computers exist is to require vulnerable wallets to precommit to transactions a day ahead of time. The precommitment doesn't reveal the public key. When the public key must be exposed as part of the actual transaction, an attacker cannot redirect the transaction for at least one day because they don't have a valid precommitment to point to yet.
> [0.1% gate error rate] is still wildly out of reach
This is false. When Fowler et al assumed 0.1% gate error rates would be reached for his estimates in 2012 [0], that was ostentatious. Now it's frankly a bit overly conservative. All the big architectures are approaching or surpassing 0.1% gate error rates.
From 2022 to 2024, the google team improved mean two qubit gate error rate from 0.6% [1] to 0.4% [2]. Quantinuum's Helios has a two qubit gate error rate of 0.08% [3]. IBM has Heron processors available on their cloud service with two qubit gate error rates ranging from 0.2% to 0.7% [4]. Neutral atom machines have demonstrated 0.5% gate error rates [5].
That slide deck is complaining that correct work on quantum attacks should be seen as negligible priority or as distractions. TFA is complaining that JVG isn't even correct. They are pretty different concerns.
To be clear, I think that slide deck will be looked back upon as naive. In particular, it makes the classic mistake of assuming the size of number factored should be growing smoothly. That's naive because 15 is such a huge cost outlier and because quantum error correction has frontloaded costs. See [1] and [2] for details.
No, 15 is unique in that all multiplications by a known constant coprime to 15 correspond to bit rotations and/or bit flips. For 2047 that only occurs for a teeny tiny fraction of the selectable multipliers.
Shor's algorithm specifies that you should pick the base (which determines the multipliers) at random. Somehow picking a rare base that is cheap to do really does start overlapping with knowing the factors as part of making the circuit. By far the biggest cheat you can do is to "somehow" pick a number g such that g^2=1 (mod n) but g isn't 1 or N-1. Because that's exactly the number that Shor's algorithm is looking for, and the whole thing collapses into triviality.
What do you mean? The original 2019 supremacy experiment was eventually simulated, as better classical methods were found, but the followups are still holding strong (for example [4] and [5]).
There was recently a series of blog posts by Dominik Hangleiter summarizing the situation: [1][2][3].
Agree. Scott is exactly correct when he just straight calls it crap.
It's inaccurate to say it wins on small numbers because on small numbers you would use classical computers. By the time you get to numbers that take more than a minute to factor classically, and start dreaming of quantum computers, you're well beyond the size where you could tractably do the proposed state preparation.
The key ingredient here is entanglement swapping [1]. Entanglement between routers A and B can be merged with entanglement between routers B and C to form entanglement between A and C. This accumulates noise, but purification can be used at each merging step to push the noise back down to 1%.
So what transmitting a message looks like is a path between the two endpoints is selected and then entanglement swapping+purification is used to turn 1-hop entanglement into 2-hop entanglement, then into 4-hop, then etc until the entire path is spanned. Then purification+teleportation are used by the endpoints to move the message.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entanglement_swapping