I think Scott's AMA gives a good impression of where we stand.

Both sides are right, in a way.

The skeptics are right, in the sense that, _no, quantum computers will not replace classical computers; at best, they will work for very specific cases with very specific algorithsm_.

The hypers are right, in the sense, that, _yes, we've made huge progress, and things look much more palpable and possible compared to where we were 10 years ago_.

I was just curious if you had any strong feelings about which side of the argument is right. 

I've generally been skeptical of quantum computing but I also know people who work closer to it who are fully bought in.

Undisciplined

Nope. Not personally. It's just one of those topics where many people have opinions on it regardless of their technical background. So there's often a lot of noise.

Hence, insofar as a classical computer will never factor a 2,048-bit RSA integer, RaQM predicts that a quantum computer will not either.

Yet, in a way, we all do. If Palmer's theory turns out to be true, there is likely much less to worry about in terms of Bitcoin being quantum-resistant or not.

science

Rational quantum mechanics: Testing quantum theory with quantum computers

south_korea_ln

> Do you have a dog in this fight?

Nope. Not personally. It's just one of those topics where many people have opinions on it regardless of their technical background. So there's often a lot of noise.

> Hence, insofar as a classical computer will never factor a 2,048-bit RSA integer, RaQM predicts that a quantum computer will not either.

Yet, in a way, we all do. If Palmer's theory turns out to be true, there is likely much less to worry about in terms of Bitcoin being quantum-resistant or not.

See also https://x.com/robin_linus/status/2093968234571792521