think I just thought of that in my head so maybe we'll do one of those


The QRL Show LIVE | CBDC's, Crypto, & AMA w/ Michael Strike

upcoming if uh that's a topic that uh is of interest people but um it looks


like uh we covered a few of those there um any last questions regarding um


on clave anything else specific to the project feel free to throw


we're probably going to answer maybe uh maybe one more we're getting to about


a little over 40 minutes so we're going to probably end this


stream in a minute but um good questions in here so far um if you


haven't already uh make sure that uh if you haven't already been subscribed


to the channel make sure that while you're watching this right now


go ahead and hit that subscribe button and that little bell that way


when we have other upcoming whether it's uh live streams or whether it is


um episodes that we do with uh a guest um in the industry ahead of time make


sure that you subscribe that way you're you know first to know and you'll


be able to see when we come out with new episodes so make sure to subscribe


if you haven't already I'm going to check the chat one more time at the bottom


here it looks like we uh have answered uh most of those ones coming in


first one in here that I can that I can jump into it's a blue


URL being minted when you swap regular QRL for it um essentially


because you're with me being moving you a QRL off-chain into a smart


contract and it you know we're never encapsulated within


XMSS uh yes something and would essentially mint something new but


that's where contract would then um I don't know I'm sure I'm sure our


developers are gonna sing me for this but they would become


unmented and sent back to you when you do uh when you do it with draw so


um yes so it would be minted and unmented


awesome that's the ERC 20 and also there will be also a subset of ERC 20s


that there are some restrictions on whether or not um on the ERC 20s


but we we're working towards not just Ethereum itself but ERC 20s to be


quantum secure in the future as well and not necessarily as


outplayed uh as the unplayed project evolves that doesn't even necessarily


limited just to ethereal as long as based on the foreseeable future as long


as a uh native blockchain has smart contract capability


the potential exists based on the scope and intent of the project


to be able to mint and unment coins on other blockchains that have um


smart contracts so awesome that was good yeah there's a good question Archer


um I think uh yeah no that's good um thank you strike for for diving into those


and uh for everyone watching this live at home I know some people are


gonna be seeing it now some people are gonna be seeing it later in the day


later in the week uh we appreciate you uh taking the time to


join us whether you listen on your ears or you're listening and watching


we look forward to doing upcoming videos where we dive into some other topics


um whether it be upcoming stuff with enclave and uh strike thank you uh thank


you for everyone at home and we will see you in the next episode


of the Quantum Resistant Ledger channel and until we see you in the next


episode keep those digital assets secure if you haven't heard about the


project or you want to learn more go to the qRL.org


explore for yourself if you want to introduce someone maybe just send them there


um get them introduced a little bit it's uh it's a fun rabbit hole to start


learning more about and uh don't be too intimidated there's a lot to learn


and uh within our community if you um there's a lot of people within our


community that are more than happy to help onboard you if you have


any questions you can join our discord community um you can


talk with our team more more than happy to help make the experience good for you


and uh strike have a great rest of the day everyone at home


talk soon and we will see you in the next episode


okay


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Welcome back everyone to the official quantum resistance ledger channel your video portal into post quantum digital asset security


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

For this video, we're going to do a walk through of our mobile wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

This is going to be the QRL wallet that can be downloaded either from google play or from the apple store


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

In this case, I'm going to do the demo from the apple iPhone because that's the phone that I have


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

We're going to go through creating a wallet backing up a wallet sending some funds just kind of some basic walkthrough information


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

And without further ado, let's get going


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Okay, so here we have the quantum resistance ledger mobile wallet and


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

This is the opening splash screen you have a few different options here


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

You can do create a wallet create advanced wallet or open an existing wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

So let me describe the differences here if you do create default wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

That's just going to be giving you the default settings for a basic wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

I would say this would work for probably


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

90% of people for those of you that are a little more advanced and want to find to in the


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

XMSS Merkel tree just a little bit more you can actually select a tree height with this advanced option


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

And what that gets down to is the number of one-time signatures that you can use essentially how many times


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

You can send a transaction from the wallet now if you're not familiar with


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

One-time signatures and Merkel trees we cover some of that in previous videos


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

That'll be a little bit more apparent


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

This is one of the costs of doing a something post quantum secure in that there's some trade-offs with how usable something is in order to make it


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Proveably quantum secure so for 90% of people I would just select that create default wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

If you want to open an existing wallet you can open it up here with a mononic phrase or a hexade value


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Now here's the interesting thing


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

When you create a wallet either on here or on the website your wallet is actually tied to the mnemonic phrase


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

And through a mathematical function in other words


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

I can create a wallet here on the mobile app and get the


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Password phrase for it and then I can take that same password phrase


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

And I can use it to open up the wallet on the qr all website through the web wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Well same thing applies with the hexade the mnemonic phrase and the hexade are


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Mathematical representations of the wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

So that's a really important takeaway as long as you have the mnemonic phrase or hexade value


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

You can restore your qr all funds


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

From any wallet anywhere


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

This is the same type of


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Concept that applies to the hardware ledger wallet whereas the passwords or the pins none of that is really


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Important because all of that usually applies to just that installed instance of the wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

What really matters is that


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Nemonic phrase or that hexade value. Okay, so let's do this first step


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Let's say you have an existing wallet that you already created and you want to import it into your


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

mobile wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

So I happen to have a wallet here now


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

I do not


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Recommend that you store your wallet in no pad. Ideally. You would want to use some sort of


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

encrypted


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Encrypted hardware device like a


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Ledger or something like that that would generate your wallet for you or there's also a hardware wallet set or literally made out of steel


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

There's lots of secure ways to do this


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Never send your phrase like this clear text in an email or store it like you're seeing here


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

We're just doing this for a demo


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

So if you look here, okay, so here is the


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Nemonic phrase and we're going to go into the qr all wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

And as I said, I created that wallet on the website and we're going to open it with the nemonic phrase


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

I'm just going to paste that phrase into here


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

And let's create a pin


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

55 and it's important to realize that this pin is specific just to this


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Wallet's installation


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

It doesn't tie the pin to the actual funds or the wallet itself


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

It's just for this program that's executing right now and we'll give this a name


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Click return and we'll open the wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

So we'll give this a moment


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Okay, so as you can see I've imported the wallet from a website from the qr all website


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

This should give you a good idea in that the


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

The nemonic phrase is actually the wallet mathematically


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

Hey, and thanks for watching. Hopefully that was helpful as far as a feature walkthrough for the qr all mobile wallet


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

If you liked what you saw go ahead and smash that like button and subscribe to our channel


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

You're also free to visit us at dub dub dub dub dot qr all dot org or visit our vibrant discord channel


QRL Mobile Wallet Walkthrough - E14

And all the social media links can be found on the website until then see you in the next video


Understanding Quantum Technologies with author Olivier Ezratty

On today's episode, we have a Lydier as Radion with us to discuss his book and to all things quantum technology.


So whether you're brand new to the space or you're really in deep into quantum,


you're sure to take away a few things from watching this. So let's dive into today's episode.


Hey everyone and welcome back to another episode of the Quantum Resistant


Lager channel, the place where you come for the crypto and stay for the quantum. On today's


episode, we have Olivier as Radi joining us to discuss all things quantum technology. Olivier is a


technology consultant and analyst who's helped organizations shape their product and strategy. He's


also a speaker and these past several years, he's had a really big focus all around quantum technologies.


Prior to this, he's done everything from publishing for CES for a number of years,


covering artificial intelligence. He was a software development engineer and held various


positions at Microsoft France from the 90s through the 2000s. And earlier this fall in 2021,


he released his fourth edition of Understanding Quantum Technologies, which is over 800 plus pages


in the length that covers just a variety of parts that we're going to cover in this episode.


It's you can find it at OEZ. RATTY.net. We'll cover it a little bit later in this episode.


And it's also not catch, by the way. Yeah. And we're, yeah, we're just looking forward to having


a discussion with you today. So Bonjour, Gienvenu, it's awesome to have you here with us.


Thank you. Hello, guys.


Yeah. And also with me is Mike Kohos, Michael Strike, Director of Outreach at the QRL,


Michael, as I always say, good to have you in conversation with me, Michael, before we start going


into a few questions, could you briefly prove that the audience on kind of the intention behind this


episode, obviously myself, you know, I'm not a professional physicist in order I try to play one


on the internet, could you just give a little bit of context for the audience, Rick?


Yeah. So this is mostly just a relatively casual conversation between the,


maybe we'll probably get into some history of computers. You might be, you know,


it could be some vacuum tubes, some integrated circuitry in there, you know, in the progression,


and maybe some correlations between how, how new new work quantum machines are scaling today versus,


you know, how machines use to scale in the past. So it's just going to be a good conversation.


And I'm sure Olivia is going to have a lot of good input here. So I'm looking forward to this.


Yeah. Olivia, before I cover the first question, I want to go into that in a second,


is there anything else that you'd like to add into your bio on a big, you know, big picture


to give the viewers a bit more context on your background? I know it's hard to capture that


within an intro, but I just don't want to miss anything before we start moving into some questions.


Yeah. It's always difficult to define yourself when you do any things. I mean, I'm a kind of


sweet knife or jack of full trade of technology. I've been covering a lot of stuff. For example,


I was very interested in semiconductor as well. So how do you manufacture a microprocessor?


Or what's the technology behind that? I learned a lot also on genomics. I learned a lot on


astronomy. I worked a little bit also on the consumer electronics on digital television. So I'm


kind of very curious guy. And I fall in love. I fell in love a quantum tech four years ago.


I was kind of excited when I saw the first performances from Google, NASA, and G-Wave. I was


trying to understand what it was about. And I love the magic of quantum. I love the complexity as


well. I love to understand the complexity and then to simplify it and to decipher it. So it explains


the thing. The other thing that I would mention is I also discovered a lot of very nice people


in that place. PCCs, the researchers. I discovered also a lot of entrepreneurs. And I found this


world very interesting in territory speaking. Thank you for covering that a little bit more.


I think moving into the first question, I think a good one to open up for the audience just


as to kind of intro into our full conversation would be within your book. You talk a lot about


quantum computers in general, them being disruptive. I think regardless of someone where they


lie in the spectrum of their understanding, I think we all know that what is to come is going to


disrupt a lot of things. I know obviously in technology disruption is sometimes an overused word.


But in which areas do you think disruption will happen first? Do you think it's going to be


a catastrophe on certain fronts? Do you think it's a bit more of a rolling and then starts to


happen more and more? We talked about this in past episodes. But what's your take on this?


Well, first I would like to say I don't use the world's description. There's a reason why.


I say in my book that I don't feel quantum computing is a Schumpeterian revolution.


Because usually a Schumpeterian revolution is something that he places and exists and stuff.


Let's say the car like plays the horse or whatever similar. Quantum computing is an


addition to the existing tools we have right now. It will bring some more power for some


particular computation like in chemical simulation. But it will replace your laptop, your smartphone,


most of the servers you have online to run your Netflix videos or whatever cool stuff you do with


your devices. So it will add more capacity mostly for researchers, sometimes for business applications.


It's adding new capacity, not replacing existing capacity. So it's not a description per se.


It's a description because it expands the capacity but not replace existing ones.


Thanks for bringing that up. I think that's a good point because I think that a lot of


we've heard this a lot just in regular and tech and startups of people saying,


oh well, all these jobs will be replaced. But if you look back at history and


or people's health, it doesn't mean it's not like AI. Sometimes AI is


a question that's something that's going to replace a lot of jobs. There were a lot of studies


a while ago. I mean starting back in 2013 saying half of the jobs in the US will be replaced


by some robots or AI. It happens eight years later and nothing has changed.


So the quantum computing is probably going to be similar. It's going to create jobs, new jobs,


new capacities helping people solve new problems, but probably not replacing a lot of


existing jobs. Thanks for covering that one. Michael, do you have one on a universal QC?


Yeah. Yeah. So some of our audience, the quantum computers might be relatively new concept and


some are probably going to be pretty experienced with the topic. There's different types available.


So D waves been making an alien what for almost 20 years, I think.


Yeah, 1990. I mean, they've been making...


I think the first commercial system was sold in 2012. So it's nearly 10 years now.


Yeah, a long time. And there's a kneeling machines. There's


gate-based machines. You also have machines that can use photons.


If there's going to be like a universtle, trap dions as well, obviously, which is probably


makes up the majority of the capital that's being invested. If you think that there's going to be


a universal quantum computer, which is really what people are striving to get to, something that


has a lot of use cases across common denominators, where do you think that is? There's a lot of


hype around trapped ions, but we're talking fractions of a degree above zero counting, right?


So we should probably make a difference between the kinds of qubits we're using, like


paptions or photons and the computing paradigm. There are three main computing


paradigms available. The main one that people are working on right now like IBM and Google


and Honeywell and I and Q are so called gate-based systems, which are using qubits and using


a gate, which are individual operations on individual qubits or a couple qubits. And then with a series of


qubit gates, you program some software to solve a problem. A subpart of those computers are


whole universal computers, universal quantum computers, because they are able to execute, I would say,


the more generic kinds of software, they have some specifics needed in the kinds of gates that


can execute and also on fault tolerance, meaning the MRI views from the developer is minimal.


And this is supposed to be universal because it's going to enable all kinds of


quantum algorithms. The second paradigm is the block of so-called analog quantum computing,


where you have both quantum learning run by D-Wave, also by a Spanish company called


Kilimanjaro. And the other category is called quantum simulation. Both are, I would say, similar


in shape and form, there are some subtleties which can split both, but those things are not programmed


with a series of gates. These are more or less similar to what we do with AI and neural networks.


These are a set of qubits that we connect with a weight, let's say, connection between the


qubits, and we program the system with setting the weight, and we try to find the kind of any


that is the minimum energy of the system, and let's say the variables are the connections,


and the unknowns that you want to find are the qubits connecting those variables.


So it's a different way to program a system, and if you look at all the algorithms that are


supposed to be run on the gate-based quantum systems, I would say that nearly two-thirds of them


could theoretically be run on quantum editors and quantum simulators. So there are a lot of


simulators in what you can do. The big difference is the performance, the availability,


the time frame of the availability. What we know is quantum editors from D-Wave have been


available for now, I'd say, eight years. The last system from D-Wave has 5,000 qubits,


which enables running a great number of applications, not yet applications which are exceeding


the power of the largest supercomputers, as far as I know. Then you have quantum simulators,


most of them are going to be solved in the next, let's say, one, two, three years, coming from


companies like QRI and US, atom computing, cold-countdown, and in France Pascal, those are companies


who will be able to sell machines or running in the next corporation providing probably some


some very interesting use case, and then you have gate-based systems. Today they don't scale


and in the future, maybe in 10 or 15 years they're going to scale much better.


Yeah, they really fix that pesky systemic noise problem, right?


Yeah, sure. So a new mentioned trap-dions and photons, so you can use most of the time,


you use the trap-dions and photons or supercomputing qubits, and others like in these centers or


cold atoms, you can use some of these technologies for both a quantum simulator or a gate-based system.


So you have to make a difference between the kinds of qubits you're using, the kind of material,


is it an atom, an electron, or a set of electrons, like in supercomputing qubit or is it a photon,


and the programming paradigm, which is sometimes applicable with the same kinds of qubits.


For example, if you compare IBM, Google, and D-Wave, all three are using so-called superconducting qubits


with some variations, but they use a different programming paradigm. And by the way, D-Wave just announced,


I think it was a month and a half ago, they announced that on top of their quantum annealer,


they want to use part of their existing technology to run a gate-based system.


So they want to reuse their knowledge in a quantum annealer to build a gate-based system,


but then we start from scratch to create a processor from scratch to do that.


So one of the things that you said that was interesting a little while ago, that I think


like a lot of people that are maybe newer to quantum computers is, we're used to


deterministic output, right? Input in, you're on the same input in, you should get the same


output out, right? The quantum machines output is statistical in D-Wave. There's


variability, right? You said the word analog, which is not something that usually here correlated


with computer because it's no longer deterministic. So I don't know, I don't know, can be


deterministic, but you're right that most quantum programming paradigms are probabilistic in nature.


This is the reason why in most of the time you need to run your program several times and you do


an average of the results. And so each of the execution is probabilistic, but if you do a large


number of execution, most of the time you converge towards deterministic reasons, most of the time,


most of the algorithms. Yeah. Thanks for answering that. I think I know we touched on


qubits just briefly, but with there being a lot of different ways to measure it. So if it's


physical qubits, logical qubits, with IBM's quantum volume, do you think there


arrive at a consensus collectively on how to measure it? What's your opinion on this?


Well, if you listen to the vendors, they don't agree necessarily because they want to favor


the metric that's favoring their systems. For some time, unless you have some pressure from independent,


let's say software vendors, for example, those are doing operating systems or programming tools,


or you have some pressure from the user of standpoint. For some time, you will have a lot of


design limits, because you don't value the same way a quantum simulator or a gate-based system,


even with a gate-based system, if you are developing a trap-dion system from


iron Q or from Honeywell, now it's called continuum, you may favor qubit abilities, which are very good,


but if you are developing superconducting qubit, you may favor some kinds of scalability,


which is not the same with a trap-dion, so there are different perspectives. What I love as an


approach there would be an approach that's more based on the usage than on the qubit


performance. It happens that a company based in my country in France, named Atos, has developed


search benchmarks on the only one, it's called Q-score, and the Q-score benchmark is based on


sizing the size of the maximum kind of problem you can solve, the combinatorial


problem you can solve with the computer. Let's say sizing N, so we are maybe 20 for such a


computer, 24 for another computer, and 27 for another one, and it's easy to compare those machines,


and you don't care about the qubit. I think that one good point you bring about that too is,


I think that some people obviously will touch on this, I think we have a later question that


covers this kind of nicely is, there's a lot of within the headlines, quantum computing


headlines make for very clickbaity things of making, this is the biggest breakthrough,


everything's going to happen, but in reality, the thing that matters is how is this going to be


applicable into the real world, and how is it going to actually make an effect and a change on


on things, so I think that measuring it that way is opposed to just like, I come from an economics


background and like, you know, there's easy ways to skew data, I think it's like kind of looking at it


from a quantum computing perspective, they're like, okay, well we can kind of like shift this a


little bit, so it looks like we're a bit more forward than the rest of the competitors, but no,


I appreciate you answering that one in. Yeah, to come back on the initial question, the other thing


we have to understand is today we know we have about, I don't know, 400, I'll go existing


algorithms, some people say it's not a lot, I would say it's quite a lot, you don't have many


machines available, so it's not that bad, I don't think that back in the 40s when we have the first


mainframes available, we had so many algorithms running on the first mainframes from uni-vac, for


example, in 51, so we're not that bad, but what we know for sure is there's going to be a lot of


innovation and invention coming from future developers, even developers were not born yet, and in 25


years people were just born this year, we invent some new use cases, you know, I feel that we are in


the quantum computing field, a bit like, let's say we are working with the guys who created the


first computer, the ENYAC, back in 46 for the US Army, and we asked him, could you invent


Twitter and TikTok and Netflix? You can't even fathom if you had a conversation with someone that


time, if you went back to that time period, how would you even explain how stuff is these days,


it's a... It's a... It's a... It's a... It's a... It's a... It's too much change too, too much change, so we have to


believe, it's a kind of belief, we have to believe in the capacity of humankind to invent interesting


use cases, the problem is more unethical problem is that, are the use cases being going to be positive


in helping to solve the world's problems in healthcare, in environment, in climate change, and stuff


like that, instead of just improving financial results from companies or banks and whatever, so


there's going to be some kind of ethical bias in what solution people do and are there going to be


some incentives to go which way or the other, but invention is going to be broader.


It's a standard consult answer, right? You're going to ask a question and the answer is invariably


more often than it is going to be, it depends, right? So... It's... It's... I mean, nobody can predict


innovation, I mean, whatever the technology, it's like for metaverse or whatever, nobody can


predict what's going to happen. The reason why it's difficult to predict and have been investigating


a lot of those kind of predictions in the past, the main reason is innovation is a societal thing,


it's a sociology thing, so it's driven by economics, by sociology, by a deep rooted need from


society and people and the young generation, so this is very hard to predict.


I have one prediction, unlike the ENIAC, I think the future quantum computer is the


lights won't dim when you power it on. If I remember correctly when the machine was a size of


a size of a small building, right? The ENIAC and when... I remember reading that the lights


would dim in the building. Yeah, but you know, if you take today the largest


you've got computers, they are bigger than the ENIAC, so you still have... Well, if you're talking


about distributed too, then it's going to be the machine, then they're even bigger.


If you take a Google data center, it's even bigger than the ENIAC, it's a 100 million


ADX, so if you look at the concentrated IT power that we are right now, it's bigger than main


frames. Good point as well. But you have a laptop on smartphones, well, just to tell me


no, it's too easy. Then on the smartphone side, things got so small that then they started


getting bigger because you're like, okay, the utility of being able to use it to be


able to type, use it as kind of a... Are you just getting bigger because there's


screen, because of our eyes, no, because of the power. Exactly, I was just making kind of a joke on


that part. Michael, do you want to... I think you had a question on interpretation, which I think


would be good. Yeah, so this is the question I like that. When we're talking quantum mechanics,


I don't know what it is about my character, but I have to always ask this question.


There's a lot... I mean, there's... I would say there's probably a strong statistical bias on


different interpretations of quantum mechanics and the strongest interpretation,


probably being the Copenhagen, right? You can make the measurement and you get...


you get a random result, but there's also a bomien and multiple worlds theory.


I guess my question is, which one do you subscribe to the most?


Well, I happen to be very biased there as well. I subscribe to one of the


interpretation that's not very known. It's called CSM. It means context system and modalities.


It's been created by two friends of mine. One is Alexia O'Fev. She's a researcher in


thermodynamics in Grenada. The other one is Philippe Bonjier. He's a very interesting scientist.


He was one of the father of the entanglement experiment around the bell test back in 82


with Alain Speck. Those two persons, they have created this kind of interpretation,


which is a kind of mix of the Copenhagen model and some kind of physical realism.


I can't detail it because it's too complicated, but it's one of the most interesting things I've


seen recently, but I'm biased because those are friends. You said that before I was going to be


able to follow up with it. You just labeled it. I picked up on that. I think I definitely would


like to hear more about that possibly in a future episode on that interpretation because


the different styles definitely interest me. You should invite them. You should invite them.


Because they are very talkative around their... It's a matter of phonology and philosophy.


Many arguments have been listening to many events in that space. It's very interesting to


listen to quantum physicist trying to do philosophy. That's a higher field on its own.


The next different conversation too. There's also this. I'm curious, when you start asking,


when you're going through different interpretations of quantum mechanics and you really


start getting into depth, there's a certain point at which you cross over this narrative threshold


where depending on the physicists that you're talking to, you'll get almost an emotional


response at time, stop asking, you'll get up to shut up and calculate. Answer.


As far as schools of thought, do you find that yourself, you're satisfied with... I'll just use


the Schrodinger equation as just the way that it is and you're happy with that or do you find


yourself looking deeper and trying to understand the things of the questions that in a lot of ways,


people are afraid to ask. Does that make sense? Well, yeah, it makes sense. I'm not afraid.


I'm still looking for some answers. The classic answer is where is the electron?


Second one is how do you interpret entanglement? Entanglement is no more... I can't interpret physically


what's the Schrodinger position. It's an addition of two waves, so physically I don't find it that


difficult. I can explain that with sound. I mean, you hear two notes and it makes another note and your


brain is able to understand what's a composite note. So that's what happens in the Schrodinger position.


But entanglement, you have two random phenomenons happening in two different places and you do a


measurement on one end and it gives that same result on both ends. That's difficult to understand


because there's some randomness in the state and there's some randomness in the measurement.


So that's difficult to explain. It's that whole non-locality part.


I mean, none locality. But what people have to understand there is most of the time people believe


that it's a tool to transmit information faster than light, which is not. It's a way to have the


same random results at two different locations, but it's not a result you can set at zero on one location


to get zero at the other one. Say, it's random. You have to ask for a turn. You can't kill the electron


monitor. It's a similar result on two hands that's random, but what has to be understood is that


is a very powerful resource that is then used for crypto-refy with a so-called QKD,


quantum key distribution to create random numbers, which are the same at two different locations.


And enabling better cryptography. It's also a resource for distributed quantum computing.


And it's a resource for connecting quantum sensors with quantum computers. It's very powerful.


But it's not a way to transmit information per se from one location to the other.


At least the classical is ticking.


And I love that. And I love that narrative too, because on one hand you've got Einstein.


Right? On the other hand, you've got Niels Bohr, right? Yeah. Einstein argued that it's a pair of gloves


that when they were together that those were hidden variables. And then at what was it?


The mid-60s you had Bell's theorem, which showed that there are no hidden variables and then


non-locality to the next year.


No, no, no. That's not what Bell said. Bell created a theorem and he defined a so-called


Bell test, which can help measure in an experiment whether there is a hidden variable or not.


And so then there was a variation of that called C. S. S. T. I don't remember the acronym


exactly with Closer. And then you had the experiment of Hala and Spay and Fligo and Jean de Lida


and Jean Ojes, four guys back in 82, which used a Bell test experiment to prove that there was


no hidden variable. And then the experiments were written a couple times until 2015.


There were a lot of other researchers in the US in other places where trying to close the


so-called Hulu poles, a loop poles where kind of mistakes that I mean,


holes in the experiments and they were making sure over time, so it took a couple decades to make


sure that the experiment was valid. And then the aspect experiment for 82 was again validator


in 2015 without loop poles. So we know that there is no hidden variable from a mathematical


standpoint. At which point everyone's had exploded. It really is just an amazing concept.


Yep. Anyway, I digress. Yeah. Where I want to move into now is I want to cover a question that


obviously this ties to a lot of stuff in news cycles, especially on the private side. But what


is your take, Olivier, on what do you think that governments are outpacing commercial quantum


computers? Obviously like just billions of dollars are going into this space. What is your take on


the government side versus the private side or on the commercial side? Because on the government


side, there is obviously an incentive to not be sharing maybe how much progress is being made.


So just I think this makes for a good question to discuss. So what's your opinion on this?


Well, I would say it depends on the country and the political system. It depends on whether there's


a lot of money funding, military, intelligence, research. It also depends on the way where the


research is being done. If you take the US, for example, there is no not a lot of government


research per se because even the NSA or CIA or the DARPA is relying on the private sector. I mean


relying on universities which are more or less independent, relying on large companies, I mean looking


Martin, IBM, whoever and then relying on startups. So there are not a vendor being involved in


publicly funded research. But if you get a China on the other hand, most of the research


yeah, most of the research is funded by government but done by


universities and research which belong to government and are really controlled by government.


I mean even the army completely. And if you take Europe in between, Europe in between, there's a


lot of money coming from government funding publicly, but it's mostly very open, there is a


lot of public implications. All the work is public even a lot of work from the US. So it's


another understanding where the money goes. So we don't know officially for typically what


is being funded by DARPA and other military and intelligence agencies in the US. But I would


guess that it's not that much. People say, oh, maybe half of the investments come from that world.


I don't think it's that much. And I don't believe that the NSA has some kind of


super duper quantum computer in their cave able to decipher RSA, RSA, 2048 bits, keys. I don't


believe it. And you know how I look at it? I looked at the history of these agencies. Because a lot


of work has been released on what happened during the six season seventies. And the history tells us


what was the difference between what was available in this season was available publicly.


And the gap in history was not that big. There was a gap of maybe one or two years maximum,


but not a gap of one generation of super computer, much bigger, or a DNA say compared to what's


happening in the in the in the in the industry sector. So in your analogy, DARPA, right? So DARPA create


essentially started to create what is now known as the internet, right? And the in the 60s.


Yeah, late 60s or early 70s. Right. Yep. And to me, there's not to me, there's not really a great


a great risk in showing in showing progress that's been made in order to get, you know, machines


to be able to talk to each other. But in this is, I guess this is an opinion and a concept I struggle


with is I can't think of, I can think of reason in which privately you'll excuse me, public


companies with shareholders that they report to would feel they need to show progress, you know,


in the amount of, you know, in quantum value or in collapse or whatever you want to call it now.


But I find it a lot more difficult to build a case for a sovereign nation to be to want to show


or feel compelled to show progress, you know, to its to its citizens, which like, feel like shareholders


but completely different. So it's from for me, it's like I have slightly different spec units that I


don't know what I don't know. And it's it's difficult to measure in no quantum pun intended.


Yeah, what I can say is in most places and besides what you believe about the startup scene,


I mean governments take more risk than the entrepreneur scene. Let's take for example a case of


superconducting, not kidneys, but superconducting electronics and computers. It was funded for a while


by the literary in the US. There were some investments as well from the Japanese government.


It didn't succeed a lot, but still a lot of the technology was reused in the military for


radars, for example, with a company called High Press and CQ in the US. Some of that technology has


been reused for doing for creating superconducting qubits as well. It may be reused soon to create


so-called control electronics which enable the scalability of superconducting qubits. So these


investments started in the 60s and they were funded by governments. So governments, particularly in


the US, are able to take more risk than vendors. You know there's a book, a famous book from


Marjiah Matzakito, I've always forgotten the name. She's an economist, an Italian born,


working in the US, explaining it's a book called the Entrepreneurial State. I love that book because


it's a pitable, very well, to the quantum space. Yeah, it's interesting. Yeah, sometimes I


get like obviously when you're talking about different sectors too, it makes a big difference


because obviously in some fronts in the US, like the Takanach maneuver space, there's a way more risk.


Like let's look on the endeavors of space, whether it's Elon Musk and you know,


yeah, it's going to space in that realm. It's actually like that's that and if we're talking on


like something in terms of that, then it's the private sector leading the way there and then


but what we're talking about a bit. I was my question, team was a couple decades. Some investments started


a couple decades ago, but you're right to say that there is a lot of private investments in startups,


you know, I am Q, tech on term and others and even the big Trump's like the IBM and the Google


are investing hundreds of millions of dollars every year. So those companies are in some cases


doing an equivalent investment in fundamental research and applied research and some technology


development. Some would say that those large companies do only technology development and pure


fundamental research would be done by public labs. I'm not sure about these because when I look at


the paper being published by those companies, I think that they also do fundamental research.


When you look at the work that John Martin is done as done at Google before leading Google a


year ago, there was a lot of fundamental research on superconducting it's not just applied research.


So and this is probably a specific of the US because there's more money put in those companies


in the US because you have the large windows there. Yeah, and you bring up a good point too in my


earlier question in what I asked you the question of about, you know, different areas of the world,


how stuff is done in the US or North America, is it very different than say in China versus how


stuff is happening within the European Union. So you're up, you know, you're up by the way,


is investing a lot with government. I mean, when you look at all the government plans in


quantum computing, it's more than US, it's about five billion euros over five years, it's more


than the official plans coming from the US government. But we don't have private sector that is


as powerful as the one in the US because we don't have large IT vendors like the Google's and


IBM's and Microsoft. So that's the big difference. But the difference is more in the large industry


vendor space than in the government funded research space. Yeah, you're seeing a lot of stuff come out,


you know, whether it's, you know, the UK, whether it's France, you know, something on blue floors,


is it where does that base Finland or? It's gonna be a leader worldwide and it's good for us.


It's a feeling another leader, which is not quantum that I love to mention them is ASML.


ASML is a monopoly on the so-called etching machines to do a premium you'd have your


head. That's the only technology available in the world to produce a five nanometer semiconductor,


which are be by Samsung and and TSMC in Taiwan. This is there's only one company in the world based


in Holland and it's actually your European company, even if you came from the European Commission,


the research funding. There's a lot of contributions for most European countries in that space,


but from Germany, for example, with lasers, powerful lasers. So this is an example where Europe


can still create worldwide leaders. Yeah, that's I'll talk about one up. I spent a number of


years in Holland and Belgium. So I'll have to from that mistake in seven seven nanometers a second place.


Yeah, from manufacturing for a friend. Yeah, and I can give you another example,


which happens to be from France. We have a small company called Placiz Best Tech. Nobody knows it.


It's very small, small business, but these guys are worldwide leaders in the machines that are


used to produce superconducting qubits. So let's ask this. I'm gonna tie into something that you


just said. We're talking about five nanometer manufacturing process, right? So I'm assuming


I think you were talking about integr-typical integrated circuitry. There's a lot, there is a lot


of talk if you dig in and I know you said that you studied, I'm not an expert on this topic.


I know you said he studied manufacturing and CPUs and things like that. We're getting,


but one thing I do know is we're getting to the point where the manufacturing process is getting


so small that electrons are starting to jump gates, right? And jumps, jump circuitry,


which start getting smaller than five nanometer. Exactly. So you have, okay, so I mean,


Moore's Law, right? I mean, it's been around for a long time. I think there's a strong


argument that we might be looking toward, we haven't been seeing the end of, you know,


what I think is started out at 18 months and I think it eventually migrated down to 12 months at


Dublin, something like that. Have you seen the out of curiosity that you've seen


Nevinslaw, which is a quantum take on Moore's Law in which,


which compared to classical computing, Hartman Nevin, one of the lead researchers at Google.


From Google, I still know. Yeah, it's not that you know, it's as low as well.


Yes, from John E. Rhodes, who was a teacher from D-Wave when it was created, he left U-Wave since then,


there are about seven loads in quantum computing power growth. There's also a low from Rob Schruppko from Yale.


And many such laws, yeah. So he's seen, so Hartman St. he's seen at some point, at one point,


he was seen doubly exponential growth doubly exponential rather than just a standard Moore's


exponential. What's your take on as far as what do you think? Do you think we'll be able to solve


these? Let's go with, let's go with, let's go with trap diets. You think we'll just solve this


thing? No, because I don't agree a lot about this double exponential.


Okay. Very optimistic. I mean, I'm not that optimistic because the real problem is


increasing the number of reliable qubits is an exponential problem on its own. So, okay, if you


add one qubit to double that tell you a typical mathematical part of the computer, but adding


one good qubit is an exponential problem on its own. And if you look, for example, at Google,


they have 53 qubits, okay, with a C-CABO, which was created two years ago. But if you look at


the the really benchmark they are doing with the real applications, they don't exceed 20 qubits.


So they have a problem. And that's a question. And that's a question because the error rate


scales with the power, right? Yeah, it depends on the technology, but typically with


ship-like conducting qubits, and we have numbers from IBM, for example, which is publishing a


lot of numbers around its various processors. They are 5, 15, 27, 65, and 01, 27 qubits. And what we


know at this point in time is when you grow the number of qubits in that technology, the error rate,


the fidelity, so confidence is decreasing, the error rate is increasing slightly. And it's one of


the most complicated physical problems. So how do you make sure that the fidelity is not decreasing


when you add qubits? Exactly. And if you take track tie-ons, track tie-ons are another problem.


Track tie-ons are the best qubits right now with regards to the fidelity. We have less than


.1%, I mean, one, two qubits error rate. So it's the most reliable qubit. The only thing is it


doesn't scale very well. It's hard to scale beyond, let's say, 40 qubits. And as a result,


I and Q, and other vendors in that space. But even with superconducting qubits,


all these people are trying to find a way to scale with the technology called scale out.


You know, in classical computing, scale in is increasing the power of your CPU. And scale out is


adding, making clusters of servers or data centers where you have multiple processors or multiple


cores that we have in multiple processors. So a lot of these companies are thinking about creating


small units of quantum computing, let's say logical qubits with many qubits, and connecting those


systems with photons. But it's another difficulty on itself. So it's another challenge.


There we call it. I recall a paper from, I think it was like, you're in half ago, me two years ago,


factoring RSA 2048 with 20 million noisy qubits. Well, there is another option that, yeah,


that is a paper. Which is I think is what you're getting at.


The paper was written by Craig Ginae, it's an excellent software, I mean, I would say,


engineer working at Google. And he's also a guy who I love a lot. I like it. He created a


tool called Quirk. And Quirk is an open source easy to use software, the tools to learn


quantum programming. It's online, it works on JavaScript. It's online, you can learn using up to


16 qubit. It did that before it worked for Google and then it created this paper and many other


papers. But there was another paper written by a couple of researchers from France from


server. And they did a paper which explained that they could reduce the number of qubits to 13,000.


At the price of adding a 14 million qubits with memory. So it's just moving the target.


It's an interesting thing. So as you know, at the end of the day, as much in his passionate


I am about quantum, at the end of the day, this is a blockchain project. So which brings us into


the area, obviously, elliptical curve, right? Shores, its derivatives, things like that.


Where are you at? Where are you at as far as, I don't know if you're a couple of making a couple


predictions, but let's talk about, let's talk about 256 bit ECC. Where do you see those,


where do you, what kind of, you have a timeframes in your head is where you start to see risks


evolve. We'll start at 64 maybe 128 and then many of us know that Bitcoin. Usually the benchmark,


usually the benchmark is when we have a computer breaking and RSA to 2048 bit more than


electric curves by the way. And so you, you're reminded, you reminded us that you need, you would


need a, with the existing technology about 20 million qubits. What we know is, with a technology


that's called CAPTubits, which by the way, again, has been developed by a couple of researchers


from France, also with Yale, people in Yale, like Michel de Vorere, Rachrok, and a couple of startups,


both sides of the Atlantic, working on that. You would need a much smaller number of


qubits. You would need about, I say, 123,000 qubits, but it's still a lot. So at this point in time,


I would say that I have no idea when it's going to come. I would say that it's a very far


future, probably more than 15 years, even though a couple people like Jeremy O'Brien from


Psychotom says it's going to be in less than 10 years, his plan is to have 1 million


qubits by 2030, 1 million, not 20. So given it's a stretch goal on its own, don't think we're


going to break shore before, let's say, 15 years or even 20 years. If it's possible.


I see a lot of, I see most opinions come within like five to 15 years, the five years are obviously,


you know, the eternal, you can do statistics, so you have a bell curve.


The bell curve is at about 15 years. The reality is nobody knows. What I try to understand


on my own, that's in the book, by the way, I try to understand which are the technology and


fundamental physics challenge to overcome to do that. And these are in our most, on both sides,


I mean, technology and fundamental physics, there are also energetic issues which have been


investigated. A friend I already mentioned, a friend Alex L. Fev from Godot. She has a couple


of PhDs working on that and she tried to estimate the energy that would be required to


break and I would say 20, 48 B.T. Based on today's technology, the best of the best of the


best that you could have in the next five years. Would you guess what to be the energy required


to break and already say within five years? I'm going to guess greater than the output of the


power of the sun over 10 years. I don't know. Oh, not that big. Not that big, but within five years,


that would be my guess. I don't see that in five. I mean, with a, with a, with a one-millisecond stability,


which is the best of the best of the spherical difficulty in labs today. With the most efficient


microwave generation electronics, which are required to control the, the qubits,


you would need a couple of nuclear fans. Okay. Well, I won't be able to be, no one will be


able to accuse me in the, in the community of being overly optimistic based on my answer.


Yeah. And the thing with this question is, I like sitting on the side of, okay, well, let's see,


see what happens. Like, so some people are going to lie more in the future. So we're going to land in


the long term, one question. I think I really appreciate that. What's interesting, it's, it's a huge


challenge and it drives innovation. It drives innovation in many dimensions, fundamental physics,


thermodynamics, it drives innovation in a so-called enabling technologies like cryoelectronics,


cryogeny as well. So it will bring, it will bring benefits globally to the field and to society.


What we don't know yet is which of those various qubits will work best to scale. It will help


us create distributed quantum computing. We need that to connect different quantum units.


So all in all, we're going to benefit from this challenge, even though maybe it won't be


fulfilled, that it's going to be creating a lot of advances. So, so we've talked a lot about,


we've talked a lot about the different types of quantum machines available, the history.


I think we've covered the fact that there's a lot of speculation as to where the industry is


and when it will get there. Let's have a little bit of fun with the topic. Yep. Now, all right.


So here's something I occasionally like to ask people that I'm talking to. Okay, so free will


is a topic that comes up in a lot on quantum computing and quantum computing because from,


well, from a atomic Newtonian framework, it's basically an open and shut case, right? Things become


deterministic. From a quantum perspective, things go a little blurry and more probabilistic. So


one question I'd like to ask you, did you decide to be a guest on the show or was my invite in


New York, something simply an act of quantum determinism? You know, what I would say is I don't need


quantum physics to recognize few will because I mean, you know, you've got stochastic physics,


I mean, some other dynamics is also about quantumness. There are different ways of understanding


on themness in the classical realm and in the quantum realm. You know, thinking that we don't have


few will is a kind of a reductionism, but it depends on the way you interpret things. I mean,


I mean, for example, even though you don't need a kind of physics or classical physics to interpret


few will, you can put sociology there. We are built also by our society, by our learnings,


our parents, there are a lot of things that determine or behavior. And it's not physical. It's


a macro phenomenon. Now, take that explanation that you gave and apply determinism to it, but also


apply the multiple worlds interpretation. Oh, okay. Which is the trick, which was the


way to see which way you went with the answer first? Oh, you mean for the multi world, I mean,


the average. Right, because you can still have determinism, but if you, if you, if you,


you know, I would have to take it. There's all that's for a lot of information in the existing


world. So I, I don't, I don't get it. I mean, this is parallel worlds for each of the values,


outcomes of any, uh, quantum objects outcome. It would make a huge information problem. And it


is a problem is storage somewhere. The DSSD is not big enough. I'm going to say, you know,


you need your assesses this is not big enough. And you know, by the way, I don't like those people


who are not the people, but I don't like this parallel that's being made between the size of the


super heat guard space. I mean, the number of quantum states, you can manage with a N qubit,


like any equals 200 and the number of particles in the universe. This comparison doesn't make any sense


because you compare states and the number of objects. It's not homothetical. I'm not a big fan


of that one either in fact. I, yeah, I agree. Yeah. One other, one other fun one I want to,


want to go into because I think this kind of ties in with your book. And this is just a fun one.


Obviously like with companies, whether it's, you know, on the U.S. startup scene, Europe, wherever


it is, obviously positioning is a big thing. And in your book, one part you mentioned, I'll just


read from it. You mentioned many companies also integrate quote unquote quantum into their positioning


if not branding in many fancy ways and either in a totally artificial way or based on using


technologies from the first quantum revolution. And so we've actually recently discussed this in


our community of companies, whether it's in headlines, whether it's actually just in, you know,


they're positioning, whether it's used, you know, wrongly. What's like, you don't have to call out


any particular company and, you know, doing this wrong, but what's your, what's your opinion on this


in general of, you know, company or companies for all doing this? I would say it depends on the


kinds of company. Yeah. I'm not against those companies who use control in their brand. I've got a nice


story to tell you, maybe it's the feminism. But I found out in my cave that my first hardest that I


bought back in, I don't know, 92 was it was the first one gigabyte hardest I bought. And I bought


it from the US based in France. It cost me, I would say, today's price probably 4,000 euros.


Yeah. And the brand of the, of the Hadis is quantum. So that's so funny. No, what I, what I don't


like or what I criticize is one field that covers a lot in my book, which is quantum medicine.


Because there are a lot of charlatans, snake or, I'm sorry, Van D


Dosa, we sell bizarre machines, mostly it's electric machine machines. But I should cancel my


quantum healing appointment for this week. Yes, you could. You can. Yeah. Unless you, you like the


placebo effect, because all those people are selling a placebo effect. Well,


placebo has proven been proven to have an effect. So maybe I should not cancel it. Maybe


that's deterministic. It works, but it doesn't work with COVID. It doesn't work with cancer.


It doesn't work with diabetes. It works with, I would say. Well, thanks for that. I'm not trying to cure any of those things.


Yeah, it works for the little problems. We say there was problems or maybe a psychology problem.


It doesn't work with a lot of various areas in this. And so the public needs it some


education about that. They need to understand how you decipher a fake medicine based on the fake


quantum science. You're talking about destroying jobs though. That, that, that my


constant problems by itself that aren't being anticipated. No, well, you know, uh, there's


always the market for goli bals. I mean, that's whatever the technology. So Olivia,


Olivia, thanks for answering that one. Besides Einstein, favorite quantum hero or


Heisenberg, Feynman Maxwell, you can even say Marvel's Ant Man if you want. No,


Einstein, Stein, you know what it is. One of my favorite hero is John Fondoyman.


And I can explain why. Okay. John Fondoyman is a real hero because he has been a huge


computer in both quantum physics and classical computing. He's the one who more or less


invented the programmable computer in the late 40s. He built the first, I think it was the


Edzak or Edvak computer in 49 in the US. And before doing that, back in the late 20s,


he developed the old quantum measurement postulates and all the quantum measurement postulates


are using right now. And then CT matrix is for example, which is a key mathematical tool to


understand the noise and decolions. All that is based on John Fondoyman work. So this one was


real genius. There's also Paul Jock, which are who I admire as well. But all the other names are


he was a very bold Heisenberg, Feynman, of course. Those are very important. But Fondoyman


is real genius. It was not on some people. I mean, people would know about the science history


know their name. But he's not as known as a Schrodinger, of course, and Heisenberg because you've


got the Heisenberg principle. You've got the Fondoyman model. It doesn't have a carry, of course.


But John Fondoyman brought his name to the Fondoyman model. The Fondoyman model is the model of


all classical computers we have right now. It's a model where you have a computing unit, a memory


unit, addressing system. All that is the Fondoyman model. So we still live with it.


Excellent. Yeah. Thanks for answering that one. Last one, I kind of want to as a closing out of


our episode, which might lead into, you know, a part two, whether we do it live or do another show


coming up based on some community questions. I'd love for you to, first off, I want to let people


know where to find your book and read about it, which is if you go to OEZRATTY.net.


She's hard to remind her. Yeah, so I have that below here. But while I ask that, can you briefly


weather, because we don't know whether someone's viewing, whether they have a really in-depth


understanding or weather, you know, they just, you know, have a little bit of sense. Give us a


flavor for what is encapsulated within the book and give them a little, you know, flavor of what


to expect. So it's easy to find because if you type understanding, contact with, maybe even without


my name, you will find the book. It's a free PDF on my blog. On top of that, I've been publishing


it on archive. There's some delay, however, because I date it mostly a couple times a week with


many updates, correct mistakes, quite typos, sometimes I update amounts raised by whatever company.


Recently, I dated it with some IBM data on their latest qubits. And the goal of that book was to


educate mostly engineers, software developers, IT people, some, I will say even some quantum physicists,


to understand quantum technologies with a 360 degree view. So it covers the history of quantum


physics. It's covered the key fundamentals of quantum physics without being too mathematical or too


complicated. Then it covers the basics of the qubits, both from mathematical standpoint and from


the physical standpoint. It covers hardware, meaning what's your quantum computer. How is it crafted?


What are these components? One of the rare content in the book, which is mostly never covered in


quantum computing books, is I explain what are all these enabling technologies which make it


possible to create a quantum computer like how a laser is being used, how all these


kaioelectronics are being designed and why are these technologies very important. I even look at


all materials. Where are they coming from? Who is producing those raw materials? Are they all coming


from China or from Australia or from the US? So I try to cover all the aspects. And then I cover


even societal geopolitical things, ethical issues. I even cover gender balance. I try to


show that there are very, I would say, product even powerful women, which are who are wrong


models to attract more young teenagers in that space. So it's a 360 degree book. And you know,


my perspective is when I write this book, I find it super official.


One part, I like it. I like that you brought up a point too, because someone doesn't lie on the


technical understanding of it. You go through nicely of some of the history. And like you said,


you cover a number of people that are working in the space, men, women, all sorts of people that


are currently doing stuff. And obviously people of the past that have set the groundwork. But I


think that whether you want to get really deep to or to it, or you just want to get a base level


understanding, I think going and digging into it, it's long. But I think that if you go through


the different chapters and kind of choose your own adventures, so to speak, you can still take a


lot from it. There's a, for example, an interesting part, which is obviously interesting for, I would


say, business people or people in corporations in the different verticals, which are the use cases


of quantum computing. But the reason why I named it quantum technologies and not quantum computing,


which was the initial name of my book when I created it three years ago, is I cover also quantum


sensing, I cover quantum telecoms and quantum cryptography. So it's all quantum technology.


I didn't even quantum physics. I cover it in a broad sense. I look at, for example,


relativistic quantum chemistry, which is not very known. So I try to be as extensive as possible,


showing the wealth of this science. The science behind quantum physics is amazingly vast.


And I've not finished with it. I mean, I know I've got a lot of things to discover.


Yeah. I always work in progress. Well, I think straight to many closing ones, I'm great at


my end. I think we can't wait for this episode. As with many areas of my life and science,


I think I'm leaving this interview with more questions than I entered with, which I've decided


to make my comfort zone. So so be it. Yeah. No. Well, we may have to maybe be off to


knock again. Have you back on Olivia? Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you guys. It was nice to


meet you with it. My first interview with Fox on the US on these books. So that's, it was a very


interesting opportunity. Thank you. Yeah. Well, Olivier, first off, like Michael said,


receive a clue. And thank you for joining us. And for those of you that are watching, if you want to check


out Olivier's book, I hope to leave the link below. If you haven't already done so as well, subscribe


to our QRL channel so you can be up to date with the latest. And until next time, Olivier,


Michael, appreciate the conversation. And we will see you in the next episode. Take care. Bye bye.


Thank you guys.


That's what I am.


What Does a Quantum Secure Implementation of MultiSig Look Like? - E05

Welcome back, crypto and quantum YouTubers to the official Quantum Resistance


Lecture Channel, your video portal and the Pulse Quantum Digital Asset Security.


Today we're going to go over one of the features of the QRL 2020 Bromine Hardfork, specifically


multi-signature transactions or multi-sig for short.


So multi-sig is relatively new, right? Well, kind of. Personally, I kind of wanted to know where it came from.


So I started it again. According to Internet lore, multi-sig's first use was recorded,


going back thousands of years in which partial keys were given to Byzantine monks in order to


safeguard precious relics. In this way, no one key could be used to open the door today,


access them. The monks at the time were seeking what we would call a secure custody solution,


and while this may seem like a bit of an antiquated representation, the concept still applies.


Even more interesting, if you look at the recent popularity of hard wallets such as crypto


steel or people in grieving, new mount up phrases and the different types of mediums,


I was reminded of the first known encrypted tax discovered in Egyptian tomb in 1900 BC.


It didn't become hard to see some of the interesting correlations between ancient custody and


cryptographic practices that were once used by our ancestors that eventually evolved in repurposed


for what we use today. So regarding the rest of multi-sig, I'm going to keep this pretty high level.


Multi-sig is all about security. Paper wallets can be burned, fade, or thrown away by a significant


other if left on the kitchen counter while you are searching for that perfect hiding place,


not that that has ever happened. Harder wallets can be opened under duress. Mobile walls can get


lost with a smartphone and third-party custody solutions can come with counterparty risk,


so our as hacks or exit scams. So possession might be 9-10th of the law, but with crypto


possessing the private key is the law. With multi-sig, a different approach is taken in that


custody of funds and transactions are shared across different users. This can reduce risk by


decentralizing custody, helping to remove the human equation, acts of God or mistakes as a single


point of failure, and you know subsequently a loss of funds. So instead of going through all of the


details, some of this is probably a little bit confusing. I'm not going to list them all out. For


click by click instructions, go to docs.duccural.org and follow through the steps.


Step number one, create a multi-sig wallet. Remember this is not a normal wallet that you can log


into. It does not have one-time signature scheme limitations. It's a shared wallet that is owned


by signatories that can be weighted and threshold set based on whatever is entered when it's created.


You can't log into it and also there's no new money key or hexade, so follow the instructions


on the website and it'll become a lot more clear. Step number two, populate the wallet with some


funds from another wallet. Need some come from anywhere. When you create the multi-sig wallet,


it will show you the public address to send to and that's how you populate it with funds.


Step number three, select the multi-sig wallet, address that you created, and submit a proposed


transaction to be approved or disapproved by the signatories. Step number four, that's it.


Voting is performed by the signatories and once a threshold is met, the transaction is executed


and submitted to the blockchain. So what are a few use case scenarios in which we could do


in which we would use this technology? One example might be a joint account in which both parties


have a weight of one. Another example might be a hedge fund or institutional account in which


three parties have a weight of one and the transaction threshold is set to two. If two parties


sign the transaction, it's executed, approved, and sent through. Trustless escrow.


They could use the eBay example, but I'm going to use a different one. Your friend offered you a


generous price for your GPU gaming rate because he just heard about this crypto thing and he really


wants to start mining. But he hasn't quite paid you back for that night of which neither of you speak


about anymore and you bailed him out of a jam some time ago. Let's just say trust is less than


a hundred percent. So you tell him that this would be a good way for him to spin up and get more


knowledge about crypto. You create a multi-sick transaction with three parties and a threshold of two.


The third party is someone you both trust so that he or she can be a third party mediator in case


you two don't agree. You didn't over exaggerate the hash rates I'm assuming. So once he receives


the rig, you sign the transaction before he figures out that there's not really any money left


GPU mining. Irrespective of anything else, if things don't go well or if rig gets lost in the mail,


your third party can decide to approve or deny the transaction. And sorry, I know the


GPU miners out there. It's probably a little too soon to run that joke. If it does help, I was


one too. But that's it. Thank you for watching. Next we're going to cover ephemeral messaging in a


future video. It's a great conversation for small talk and social events. Well, depending on who you're


talking to and the event, I guess. But thank you for watching. Subscribe if you'd like what you see


here and for more detail, again, see docs.duccural.org. Thanks.


Quantum Computer Secure Ether? Ethereum, meet EnQlave!

So today I'm going to do an overview of the Curl Enclave Smart Contract System.


To understand it at a high level, you really only need to know about two smart contracts,


both of which will live on the Ethereum main network.


The first of these is the XMSS registry contract to the left, which you can think of as a phone book between Ethereum addresses and the XMSS public keys that they've registered.


The second important function of this contract is that it verifies XMSS signatures on chain.


What that means is that you can pass in a message and an XMSS signature on that message,


and the contract will return true if the signature was valid and false otherwise.


The second contract to know about is the individual post-quantum secure multi-signature wallet.


Now that's a lot of words, but it basically is a vault where users can store any funds, any ether or ERC20 tokens that they want protected from the threat of quantum computers.


Now basically one of these vault instances will be deployed for every unique user of the Enclave system.


When an Ethereum user wants to deploy one of these post-quantum vaults, the first step that they'll take is to generate an XMSS public key.


The next step is to call the XMSS registry contract with your new XMSS public key.


The registry contract will associate that with the Ethereum caller and make sure that the public key hasn't been registered before and that the Ethereum user hasn't already generated a post-quantum secure vault,


since each user can only have one.


With those checks passed, the XMSS registry contract will deploy a new unique instance of the PQ secure multi-sign vault.


Now assume that that Ethereum user, after putting some funds into their vault, wants to make a transaction or send the funds to another address on Ethereum.


The first thing that they'll have to do is determine the exact details of their transaction.


Once they determine that, they need to sign those details with a one-time signature linked to their XMSS public key.


This will create an XMSS signature.


With this signature in hand, they will call the Submit Transaction function on their own deployed vault.


The individual vault instance will then process this transaction.


It will make sure that it has the appropriate funds and if so, it will call the XMSS registry contract for verification of the XMSS signature on the details of the desired transaction.


The XMSS registry contract will return valid or not valid.


Only if the signature was valid, will the funds leave the account.


This basically guarantees that only the holder of the POCE Quantum secure XMSS credentials will be able to move funds from their individual vault.


And even if ECDSA were compromised by Quantum computers, potential attackers would not be able to move funds from these individual post-quantum secure vault.


What Exactly is the Quantum Threat to Bitcoin? Part 1

What exactly is the quantum threat to Bitcoin?


We're going to go over that exact question for you in simple terms so that when you leave this episode,


you're going to have a better understanding of what that quantum threat actually is.


Everything from asymmetric cryptography, all the way to understanding how a Bitcoin transaction takes place


from sender to receiver and much more.


So let's dive into today's episode.


Hey everyone and welcome back to the Quantum Resistant Ledger channel, the place where you come for the crypto and stay for the quantum.


Today's episode is the first part of a series where we are going to be discussing what exactly is the quantum threat to Bitcoin.


So we're going to dive right into it and cover that for you in this first part of an episode.


With me is our director of outreach at the QRL, Michael Strike. Michael, it's great to have you with me.


Thank you. Thank you.


So let's dive right into this topic of what exactly is the quantum threat to Bitcoin.


Michael, can you cover on a high level? Can you give us an idea if we transact in crypto,


sending to and from whether it's a lot or a little, but we don't always know what's going on on the underlying level of that.


Can you give us a little bit of understanding on that so we can better grasp it.


And I know there's probably a few parts into that as well, but can you cover that for us?


Sure. So the most important thing to understand when we're talking about the quantum threat is how Bitcoin,


the signing of transaction works and how addressing works. So I'm just going to, this is actually pretty simple.


There's different, there's different addressing schemes that are available in Bitcoin like paid a public key, paid a public key hash.


I'm just, there's paid a public script. I'm going to just pick the most simple one.


And because it was the first one and it's the most relevant.


A Bitcoin address is simply a 256 bit random number. That's the private address, the private address,


256 bits. It's just chosen, it's just chosen randomly or pseudo randomly for the purest, right?


And that is your private key. Okay. Now, in order to get the public key that could be shared


or someone else, in order for them to send you a payment, you take that 256 bit pseudo randomly generated


number and then you apply elliptical curve multiplication. Once you apply elliptical curve


multiplication, you end up with your public key. So this public key can be used to, for someone


else to send you funds, they can perform what's called a transaction output and they will send to your


public key and those funds will sit there waiting for you to claim them and do something with them.


The only thing I want to cover first off is that those three steps, 256 bit random number,


that's your private key. Elliptical curve multiplication and then you end up at your public key.


And that's basically the most simplest keychain. And that function between going from that private


key to that public key, that's called it's a one-way function. There's no classical way to take


a public and make it back into a private. But that's where we're going to enter, that's where we're


going to talk about the quantum aspect. Thank you for explaining that, Michael, helps break it down.


For those of you watching, we've covered the addressing in this first video and the next part of


this series of what is the quantum threats of Bitcoin. We're going to be covering shores algorithm


and the quantum threat. Look forward to this next video upcoming and we're going to dive more into


this topic in this video series. Have a great rest of the day and we will see you in the next episode.


QRL Show featuring guest Ethan Hansen from "Quantum Computing Now" - Let's Talk Quantum/Blockchain!

On today's episode we are joined by a podcast host who interviews experts in the field of quantum computing. Let's dive in.


What is going on everyone and welcome back to another episode of the Quantum Resistant


Ledger Channel, your video portal into the world of post quantum digital asset security.


With me for today's episode is my co-host Michael Strike, our director of outreach here at the QRL.


And both of us are excited to be joined by Ethan Hanson who is called in via audio.


He is the creator and the host of quantum computing now, a podcast that is right up our alley.


It is great to have you with us Ethan. Yeah, it's great to be here. Thanks for having me on.


Cool. Well, we are excited to just share with you about a number of different things today based on


some of the conversations that you've had with experts in the field, kind of get your stance on a


few different things. But I'd love to start out with what do you know about the QRL project and


what do you like most about it based on what you know?


Yeah, so I guess I don't know too much. Honestly, my big thing is quantum computing, not necessarily


quantum cryptography. But what I do know is that it is essentially where Bitcoin is based off of


blockchain, Bitcoin can be used for cryptocurrency and then also things for digital assets in general


signing things at quantum resistant ledger sort of takes that generalizes it uses new or maybe not new,


but different technology than Bitcoin does to make it so that when we get to the point where


quantum computers are powerful enough to do things like run shortzog rhythm and grover's algorithm


and actually potentially influence how we do cryptography.


Quantum resistant ledger sort of can step up and be resistant, maybe not perfectly able to


counter all attacks, but at least more resistant to quantum attacks than other classical


blockchains like Bitcoin or Ethereum.


Yeah, that's a really good initial description. So a couple things or if anyone that's watching


that's not familiar with our project, to what Ethan said, we're a purpose-built blockchain


that's purpose-built for to be quantum computer resistant from the first block. So from Genesis,


we have been provably quantum resistant. This is all based around XMSS and a hash-based


signature scheme using one-time signatures around the XMSS protocol, which is recently NIST


recommended. So to part of what you were saying, Ethan, so all of this is the project


essentially looks like a Merkel tree in the end up with these public private key pairs,


which are all hashes of each other. And because hashes are in many ways


considered to be quantum secure, that's what that's what that's foundationally, how the


address instruction works as opposed to Bitcoin, which uses asymmetric public private key encryption,


which is based on elliptical curve cryptography, which as you already know is made up is built around


factorization of prime numbers, which is what Shor's algorithm could potentially compromise


by a quantum computer. So just a couple of links to Phil and yeah, but yeah, that's a good description.


Yeah, what I want to do now is I'd love to dive in Ethan to kind of your lane and your podcast


a little bit. And how did you initially get involved in this space of I know I'm sure you get this


a lot, maybe from family or friends, you're just from other people that you interact with when they


say you do a podcast that's all about quantum computing, news, basic concepts and stuff. I read


your piece that I think it was from 2017 or so, where you talk about kind of what initially got


you interested in it. But what's the origin story which led to quantum computing now?


Yeah, so I guess the origin story of what led to quantum computing now is a little bit different


than what initially got me into quantum computing, because I've been interested in quantum computing for


a long time, but it sort of sparked my interest and then sort of died down and then I really


started getting back interested, more interested into it at summer two years ago. So I guess


be summer of 2019, had an internship at IBM who is one of the big players in quantum computing.


And I actually got to, as part of that internship, have some like 20% time to do my own thing,


look for interesting things in IBM. And one of those things that I found was quantum computing.


I knew a little bit about it, but I wanted to know more. So I got to actually talk to some experts,


almost like a proto version of what I do on my podcast now. And I got to talk to some people who


are working on hardware, some people who are working on software, just ask all my dumb questions


and get them answered. And I went, I was pretty fun. And I've loved podcasts since forever too.


So I looked for a quantum computing podcast. There was Meet the McQuanix, which is excellent.


It's a little bit more technical, I would say. And I was a little bit sad because I looked and


like their last episode had been published six months ago. So I thought it was maybe not active


anymore. So I figured, well, what the heck, I'll make my own and see how it goes. And yeah,


that sort of that kicked it off. And it's been downhill since there.


Yeah, can you dive into one part I thought was kind of cool is I think you kind of coined it of


the quantum, done and crew, good effect. What's your kind of take on that? I kind of saw that in


your first piece. I think people that are viewing this might find that interesting. Can you


touch on this just for a second? Just in case, just for context. Yeah, so it's essentially the standard


done in crew group effect where you start off and you go, well, I know that I know nothing.


And then you start learning a little bit more. And you think that, you know, like all there is


to know about quantum computing, you think quantum computing is going to solve everything. It's going


to completely revolutionize every aspect of every part of our lives. We're going to have a


quantum laptop with some part in the future. And then you learn a bit more and you realize,


oh man, there is so much more I don't know than what I do know. And you realize that there are a


lot of smart people who are working on this. And even they don't know everything about this. And


they don't have all of the answers of how we're going to make quantum computers, perfect in the future.


And you realize, well, maybe I got to tone down my expectations a little bit. And then you maybe


overcompensate and then towards the end you realize, well, yeah, quantum computers are probably going


to change a lot of things, but maybe not all of the things. So yeah, sort of that roller coaster of


how much do I know? What am I expecting from quantum computing going from zero to a lot to too little


to just about right? It's almost a humbling experience to start with nothing. Do all the research,


become as educated on the topic as you can. And then end up with more questions and you had when


you started. Yeah, it's kind of like the rabbit hole that you kind of almost wish you didn't go


down. Because you went initially looking for answers and you end up with more questions at least.


That's how it ended up for me. Yeah, I think this is an important part just to bring


up in general with whether we're talking quantum computing or we're talking blockchain or anywhere


in crypto really. There's a lot of people that are overconfidence and that haven't asked the


right a lot of questions haven't done a ton of research. And then a lot of people that have looked


into what more are a bit more humble and grounded in that there's a lot that's still to be


learned. And it's the industry is changing so fast. So I just wanted to bring that part up when I


saw as soon as I saw quantum done in Kruger effect kind of as your examples. I was like, oh, that's


perfect to dive into. So appreciate you diving into that for a second. Yeah, one of the questions I


want to dive into next is your podcast has a lot of thought leaders, experts, people that are involved


in quantum computing. And what I want to ask you is whether you have someone on that's talking


about dilution refrigerators or another area that you have a lot of guests that are really deep


in depth in their specific lanes. What trends or maybe commonalities have you found across


different guests that you've had on the show? Have you realized that there's a lot of things that


kind of are in line or all over the place. We can kind of go in a few different directions based


on this question. But since you've had so many guests that are in a very niche field, I'd love to


hear what your take is on having those guests talk to you. Yeah, totally. So the first thing to note


is that it's a super humbling experience like Mike was saying, just hearing all of these people that


know so much about their field and you realize how little you know and getting to ask them, you know,


dumb questions like I do is just it's fantastic. And I think that one of the trends or the commonalities


we see across all of the different people who have come on the podcast and like you were mentioning,


it's software people and hardware people, business leaders, even some sort of quantum adjacent,


quantum cryptography, people have come on the show. And what you realize is that it's really early


for all of these technologies, but it's starting to pick up. Sometimes it feels like,


and this isn't necessarily someone, something that someone on the podcast has said, but at least for


me, sort of feels like we're the monkeys at the beginning of 2001 Space Odyssey. You know,


we're hitting this quantum computer. Well, what if I hit it this way? Will it do something? What if I


hit it this way? And it's sort of a lot of guests in check. Obviously, there's it's a educated


guests in check, but it's still really, really early. And these technologies are maturing. And


that's a second trend that I've noticed is that it's speeding up. The pace of innovation is definitely


accelerating. But that being said, it's sort of like, you know, accelerating from 0.1 per year to 0.2 or


0.3 per year with arbitrary units. And yeah, so super early. And it's not necessarily, like I said,


quantum computing isn't here. There are quantum computers, but if someone tells you that we are


currently in the age of quantum computing, I would disagree and say that if this is the age of


quantum computing, then the 1960s to mid 70s is the age of the personal computer. It's still too


early to call it the age of quantum computing. But you can see that trend where we're definitely


getting towards the age of quantum computing. You see that, like I said in software where


the pace is really accelerating in that we're anticipating this hardware


to your ground. And so we're creating softwares are more available, bigger, more air-corrected.


And as that continues, that sort of pushes from in front this hardware innovation where, okay,


we've got these algorithms that can do really cool things if we can get it to 100 qubits with this


level of error correction. And so you make sure you get those 100 qubits with that level of


error correction. Hardware, even on things like cryogenics, dilution refrigerators, is that there's,


you wouldn't think that there's much progress you can make on things like refrigerators,


but there definitely is. And you see this continuing over time, you see better dilution refrigerators


that can use less power, get things colder. And that's really important for superconducting qubits


if we want to scale those to reach that 100 qubits and make these really good quantum computers


that can actually solve really useful problems. So I'm proud and thinking a lot of ideas come


to mind. Some of the things you said on the last one, probably getting a dilution refrigerator,


you know, it's not something you can walk into Sears, right? And there's probably, there's certainly


varying degrees of no pun intended of quality of dilution refrigerators. The best ones that I've


seen are fractions of a degree above, you know, can bring temperature down to fractions of


degree above absolute zero. And I don't remember which hardware company, which quantum computer


manufacturer that it was, I think it was IBM that was saying they're starting their,


they're still, they're developing their own, they're trying, they're also becoming almost a


refrigeration company because what they're trying to do, some of this stuff doesn't exist.


So which is really interesting to me because thermodynamics and refrigeration and phase change,


you know, was invented one carrier 1901, that technology has been around for 120 years. And we're


still finding ways to make things colder. But one other topic I want to touch on you, we're talking


about the history and correlations of the past with quantum computers now. I'm going to share my


screen for just a moment. Okay, can you guys see this? Yep. So yeah, this today, don't look at just


without paying attention to the outside of the yellow boxes, such instruments, it was said,


could revolutionize modern engineering, bring it a new epoch of industrial design and eventually


eliminate much slow and costly trial and error development work. Here too far, I don't think I've


ever even said that before. Shear mathematical difficulties have often forced designers to accept


infer solutions to their problems with higher costs and slower progress. It's inventors say


it computes a mathematical problem 1000 times faster than has ever been done before. Nothing


inside it's 18,000 vacuum tubes and several miles of wiring. I'm not saying that history


directly repeats, but this article kind of makes, you know, it reminds me of results like it rhymes.


History does rhyme if you know, if a cube it were a vacuum tube. And the things that they're saying,


so this is the ENIAC, no, it says it says that down here. And, you know, it was a vacuum tube


based computer, it was a size of a building, the red a book kind of like 20 years ago. I think I


remember the lights would dim in the city when they turn it on. And if I'm not mistaken, that's


actually where the bug software bug came in, there was an insect that had crawled into the


vacuum tubes and shorted it out. But to what you were saying, you were thought you were correlating


the past with the present. So yeah, we are at an early, we are at an early kind of bit of an


infant stage, but here's the difference between then and now. If we're working on an ENIAC,


we're working on vacuum tubes. We're doing state of the air technology in the 1940s.


If we want to collaborate, we have to make telephone calls, right? Or we're writing letters,


we're making phone calls, we're trying to gather people together. The degree of collaboration that


we have now is 10, 15, 25 fold, right? We've got zoom zoom meetings, we've got email, we can take


PDFs, we can take white papers, light papers, audio, anything, and just send it across the world


in a matter of seconds. So with the degree with the, taking into consideration the degree of


communication and the efficiency of that, I can see that it's, I can see that speeding along the


progress of, of quantum computers, much more, much more quickly, I think it was Hartman Neven


that, that said that he was experiencing the growth as doubly exponential. So I, I thought this was


interesting based on what you were saying. So, Dr. Drake, what I, what I want to segue into now is,


I want to start, I want to come back to what we're discussing with some parts of quantum computing,


but I'd like to segue in just for a few minutes on to blockchain. So we could ask,


you think kind of what is take is with the quantum threat related to, you know, obviously, you know,


Bitcoin, Ethereum, you want to dive into that for a few strike. I know you had a question or two


regarding this. Yeah, so Ethan, you're, I, from what my, my understanding, you're a bit of a


blockchain enthusiast. Yeah, what, what, what projects are you familiar with besides the QRL?


I'm a little bit familiar with, you know, sort of the big names, Bitcoin, Ethereum,


Monero, I've heard a little bit about Dash and a little bit about Nano. And then one that I was,


used to be like a big fan of was Iota. Yeah, all, all big name projects. So, you're most likely


aware that all of these projects besides QRL are based on asymmetric cryptography as our 99.9% of


blockchain and crypto projects in general, which are all susceptible to a factorization in shores.


So, you know, someone that doesn't work on the, that as a holder, as a potential holder of Qana,


how do you feel like what's your take on this, what's your take on this quantum threat to blockchain?


I mean, Ryan and I have been talking, Ryan and I have been talking about this for, for quite a,


quite a bit of time, but I'd love to hear an outsider's view that has not just blockchain,


you know, knowledge, crypto knowledge, and quantum mechanics. So like, where do you, where do you


quantify this risk at this pulse quantum threat? Yeah, that's, so I think there's, there's two


parts to this. And I'll do what I do with my podcast and I'll lean on people who know more than I do.


But the, so I recently read a interesting article that was published, I don't remember all of the


authors, but one of them that stood out because I heard his name before was Peter Road,


and it was on quantum crypto economics, which, and in that they talk about sort of two ways that


quantum computing will influence how we use cryptocurrency and cryptography. And the first one was


what they called Grover expansion. And the second one was a short attack. So Grover's algorithm for


people who aren't as familiar, familiar with quantum computing is a way of finding a certain element


in a list of elements. So if you have an unordered list, typically you've had a search through


all of them, right? You go, is this the number one? No, is this the number one? No, you go all the way


to the end. Finally, you find the number one. And that takes however many elements you have there.


Grover's algorithm can do it in square root time. So it's what we call a quadratic speedup.


And a lot of people say that quadratic speedup isn't really enough to get useful speedup out of a


quantum computer, but that's a potential attack vector from quantum computing on the actual


hashing for mining new blockchain. So what they're talking about there with the Grover expansion


is that you're sort of expanding the supply by mining it way faster than it should be.


And then the second one is like you were talking about was the shore attack. And that is looking