Plan B - Who carries the torch?

[Stefan Claas]

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 10:56 PM Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org> wrote:

> > in their twenties so that it can be assumed, when in 10 years Google
> > and IBM have Quantum Computers, which make our classic encryption
> > like
> > ECC probably useless that then people may have a problem.
>
> Quantum computing has been ten years away since 1992, which is when I
> first heard about it.  I would be extraordinarily cautious about
> believing the hype.  Getting enough qubits together to form the
> necessary quantum logic is only a very small part of the overall
> picture.  Read up on Grover's algorithm sometime, and think about just
> how unreasonable the requirements are: they're so unreasonable as to
> make the prospect of breaking crypto via Grover's actually _slower_
> than the classical way.

Well, I do not follow any hype but you, as a well educated person
knows like many others, I strongly assume, that people interested
in this topic can play already with Quantum Computer Resistant
algorythms, freely available. Not only this, but when folks, I judge
as professionals in their field, are doing work related to this topic,
i.e. NIST [1] I guess it would not hurt to mention this. Last year,
for example, was the ECC conference and it was mentioned
that IBM and Google would be capable in ten years to have
Quantum Computers with a million qubits, or so and not only
a couple. Besides Quantum Computers I would guess that
also research in the field of other technologies are done,
wich can, as understood, rival Quantum Computers and
are cheaper to produce and to maintain. [2]

>
> > I assume the worst case scenario that when Werner retires and starts
> > to enjoy life with his family and friends and let's say Andre would
> > change his career path who carries then the torch, so to speak?
>
> Who cares?

For example me, and now maybe others ... :-)

> Seriously.  OpenPGP has survived as long as it has mostly by a miracle
> involving the diligence of a handful of people, but in many ways it's
> embarrassingly ... well, not obsolete.  Definitely obsolescent, though.
> A cryppie at Johns Hopkins, Matthew Green, describes OpenPGP as a
> showcase of the best cryptographical techniques of the mid-1990s, and
> he's not wrong.
>
> Someday, we'll decide OpenPGP has done enough and should be retired.
> And that will be okay.  I hope that someone else comes along and works
> on a newer standard using the best cryptographical techniques of the
> 2020s, and I hope this new standard breaks backwards compatibility with
> OpenPGP.  Breaks it flagrantly, violently, and spectacularly.
>
> > So, ladies and gentlemen any thoughts or insights which can be
> > shared?
>
> Yeah.  Less time worrying about how to make OpenPGP continue for
> another twenty years, more time spent about how to make a next-
> generation cryptographic tool that will occupy the same space OpenPGP
> did but will do it better and with more modern techniques.

Thank you very much for your thoughts, which I agree.

Question however remains, who will do this? Cypherpunks, for example,
are dead, which had IMHO a great influence in the past.

[1] <https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/01/nist-reveals-26-algorithms-advancing-post-quantum-crypto-semifinals>

[2] <https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA600067976&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00280836&p=AONE&sw=w>

Regards
Stefan