Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Qtonic Quantum
1.3K posts
Qtonic Quantum
@QtonicQuantum
Leading the quantum cybersecurity revolution. Permanent post-quantum readiness for enterprises across all sectors. Q-Day is coming. Will you be ready?
Florida, USA Katılım Ekim 2024
344 Takip Edilen800 Takipçiler
Is NIST too late? NIST advances nine post-quantum signature algorithms as race to secure data from quantum attacks intensifies
industrialcyber.co/nist/nist-adva…
English
A finance professor at FGV-EAESP just wrote in Oxford Business Law Blog what most boards still do not want to hear:"Once a material technological vulnerability is known, boards, senior managers, exchanges, clearing houses and regulated financial firms cannot treat preparation as optional indefinitely."We scored 215 production PQC implementations against FIPS 203, 204, and 205. The average came in at 51.8 out of 100.Half the migrations already deployed would fail a fiduciary review today.The vulnerability is not coming. It is shipping.blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/oblb/blog-post…
English
Quantum security has moved from theory to operational reality. Meta just gave enterprises the roadmap. Now comes the hard part: execution.
qtonicquantum.substack.com/p/quantum-secu…
English
Three days ago the Pentagon published a presolicitation notice to modify the F-35's In-Line File Encryption Device for quantum-resistant algorithms. Sole source to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. Capability statements due May 21.
The single most expensive weapons program in American history is migrating to post-quantum cryptography. Now.
The F-35's IFED protects the signed code that runs the aircraft. The Pentagon's requirement: the PQC update must deploy in the field without opening the enclosure. No depot returns. No hardware swap. Software-deliverable cryptographic agility on a deployed weapons platform across more than a dozen countries.
This is downstream of the November 2025 Department of War CIO memo that ordered an all-systems cryptographic inventory and set 2030 / 2031 retire-by dates. The Pentagon is doing exactly what every Fortune 500 needs to do. Inventory. Prioritize. Migrate. In that order.
If the F-35 cannot wait, your TLS certificates cannot wait. Your code signing cannot wait. Your passkeys cannot wait. Your VPN cannot wait.
QScout finds the exposure across every key, certificate, and protocol in your environment in 72 hours. 70 modules. 14 compliance frameworks. QStrike proves the risk to your board through live quantum attack demonstration. QSolve executes the migration. The Qtonic Quantum Lab independently scores every PQC implementation so you deploy what actually works.
The Pentagon is running this playbook on a fifth-generation fighter. You can run it on your enterprise.
defence-blog.com/pentagon-prepa…
Find. Prove. Fix. qtonicquantum.com | @QtonicQuantum
English
The IonQ CEO Just Said Q-Day Is Closer Than We Think. Here Is What CISOs Need to Hear.
On CNBC this morning, IonQ Chairman and CEO Niccolo de Masi delivered one of the most aggressive public corporate timelines yet for cryptographically relevant quantum computing. The 2028-2029 window is now impossible to ignore in board, audit, procurement, and regulatory planning.
linkedin.com/pulse/ionq-ceo…
English
The algorithm floor is falling. The hardware ceiling is rising. They cross before 2033.
Every credible algorithmic resource estimate for ECC-256 plotted against every major hardware roadmap on a single physical-qubit scale. Cain et al. dropped the floor to 9,739 qubits this year. Quantinuum, IonQ, Google, IBM, Alice & Bob, the neutral-atom players, and Diraq are all on trajectories that cross into that zone between 2028 and 2032.
Our conviction is 2029. Google says 2029. Aaronson says hardware experts told him 2029. The chart says the same thing in five colors.
If your migration finishes after 2029, your migration finishes too late.
QScout finds the exposure. QStrike proves it. QSolve fixes it. Find. Prove. Fix.
qtonicquantum.com
English
Algorand has been telling this story longer than almost anyone in crypto. They built Falcon post-quantum signatures into their state proofs in 2022, before NIST even finalized the standards. While other chains are still drafting roadmaps, Algorand shipped. Steve Ferrigno is right that store now decrypt later is not a future risk. It is happening today. Adversaries are collecting encrypted traffic right now, storing it cheaply, and waiting for the machine that decrypts it. The Federal Reserve treats it as a present threat. The NSA built CNSA 2.0 around it. Every organization with data that must remain confidential beyond 2030 is already exposed. The migration is not about preventing future breaches. It is about limiting how much of today gets read tomorrow. @QtonicQuantum |
ALLINCRYPTO@RealAllinCrypto
Quantum computing is not just a future problem. Steve Ferrigno from @Algorand explains the “store now, decrypt later” risk where encrypted data collected today could be cracked in the future once quantum computers become powerful enough. #ALGO #QuantumComputing
English
Brian is right that the PQC era will arrive before 2029. He is wrong that Bitcoin is safe. The Google paper is literally titled “Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities.” It targets secp256k1, which is Bitcoin’s exact signature scheme. Co-authored with the Ethereum Foundation. The result: Bitcoin’s signature breaks in nine minutes with under 500K physical qubits. That said, the broader point stands. The same elliptic curve math protects almost everything else too. TLS, passkeys, code signing, VPNs, FIDO2. Bitcoin is not the exception. Bitcoin is the canary. Everything Brian says about “everything else” applies to Bitcoin first. @QtonicQuantum |
Brian Roemmele@BrianRoemmele
Evidence suggests Post Quantum Cryptography era will arrive before the 2029 Google predictions. BItcoin is safe but just about everything else is not. “Last month, we called to secure the quantum era before a future quantum computer can break current encryption. This new timeline reflects migration needs for the PQC era in light of progress on quantum computing hardware development, quantum error correction, and quantum factoring resource estimates”—Google
English
For 20 years, Scott Aaronson has been the person who tells you to calm down about quantum computing. His blog tagline: “quantum computers won’t solve hard problems instantly by just trying all solutions in parallel.” He has corrected more quantum hype than anyone alive.
Yesterday he was elected to the US National Academy of Sciences.
Today he titled his blog post: “Will you heed my warnings NOW?”
His words: “If quantum computers start breaking cryptography a few years from now, don’t you dare come to this blog and tell me that I failed to warn you. This post is your warning.”
He says the most reputable people in quantum hardware are now telling him a fault-tolerant quantum computer able to break deployed cryptosystems ought to be possible by around 2029.
He co-authored the Coinbase advisory board paper with Dan Boneh. The same Dan Boneh who co-authored the Google paper showing Bitcoin’s signature breaks in nine minutes with under 500,000 physical qubits.
This is not a vendor. Not a startup. Not a stock promoter. This is the most trusted voice in quantum computing, a newly elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, telling the world on the record: act now.
If Scott Aaronson is warning you, who exactly are you still waiting to hear it from?
scottaaronson.blog/?p=9718
@QtonicQuantum | qtonicquantum.com
English
The first statewide quantum-safe network in the United States just launched in Florida. Our home state. This is not a research project. This is infrastructure. IonQ and Florida LambdaRail are building the network layer. But a quantum-safe network is only as secure as the endpoints connected to it. Every organization in Florida that touches this network will need to answer a question: is your cryptography ready for it? Do you know where your elliptic curve keys are? Your vulnerable certificates? Your legacy protocols? A quantum-safe network with quantum-vulnerable endpoints is a highway with no guardrails. That is what QScout solves. Find your exposure before you connect to the infrastructure built to replace it. @QtonicQuantum |
IonQ@IonQ_Inc
“Creating a statewide quantum network in Florida will mark another major milestone in the deployment of IonQ’s global quantum platform,” said @NiccoloDeMasi, Chairman and CEO of IonQ. Read our full announcement with Florida LambdaRail: ionq.com/news/ionq-and-…
English
Alan Baratz just said the quiet part out loud. The race is not about more qubits. It is about better ones. And better qubits are arriving faster than most threat models account for. Quantinuum shipped 48 error-corrected logical qubits from 98 physical. QuEra just demonstrated 50%+ encoding rates. Oratomic showed ECC-256 breakable at 12,000 physical qubits with high-rate codes. D-Wave acquired Quantum Circuits for $550M to build gate-model machines with dual-rail error detection. Every major hardware company is now converging on the same thesis: correct first, then scale. That is bad news for anyone whose security model depends on quantum computers needing millions of qubits. They will not. They will need thousands of very good ones. @QtonicQuantum |
Alan Baratz@Alan_Baratz
The path to scalable quantum computing will not be won by simply adding more qubits. It will be won by building better ones. Much of the gate-model industry has pursued scale first and planned to address the error challenge later. We believe that is the wrong approach. D-Wave’s dual-rail qubits give us an important advantage by enabling a correct-first architecture designed to detect errors earlier at the hardware level. That creates a stronger foundation for scale. In our view, the real differentiator is not scale at any cost. It is correct first, then scale. $QBTS #quantumcomputing
English
Two words. Value > cost. That is the entire quantum threat in a formula. The cost of building a special-purpose quantum computer is falling every quarter. The value of what it can steal, forge, or decrypt has never been higher. A machine that breaks one major Bitcoin wallet pays for itself. A machine that breaks one Fortune 500 company’s TLS infrastructure pays for itself ten times over. And the cost does not have to be $20 million today. It only has to reach that threshold once. After that, economics takes over. The first one is expensive. The tenth is cheap. The hundredth is a line item. Meanwhile, the Community Note on this tweet argues the 15-bit demo relied on classical processing. Fine. Shor’s algorithm at any scale relies on classical pre and post-processing. That is how the algorithm works. The quantum part is the period finding. The classical part is the number theory. Dismissing the result for being partially classical is like dismissing a calculator for using electricity. @QtonicQuantum | qtonicquantum.com
Brandon Severin@BrandonSeverin
also - qubit count is only part of the story. people are missing number of gates and actual runtime. someone yesterday joked saying that it would cost $20M a year to run a football stadium quantum computer... I'd argue that might be an order of magnitude off - how much does it cost to run a football stadium today, without the quantum computer? value > cost
English
Read this chart and understand why the quantum threat is not a distant problem. Every useful quantum application that investors are funding, drug discovery, materials science, financial modeling, requires MORE logical qubits and MORE quantum gates than breaking elliptic curve cryptography. The first fault-tolerant quantum computer powerful enough to do anything useful will already be powerful enough to break your encryption. It is not that cryptanalysis arrives eventually. It arrives first. Before the benefits. Before the ROI. Before the press releases about quantum advantage in pharma. The destructive use case is easier than the constructive ones. That is the curse. And that is why migration cannot wait for quantum computing to “prove itself” with commercial applications. By the time it proves itself, your keys are already broken. @QtonicQuantum | qtonicquantum.com
Pierre-Luc@dallairedemers
The quantum application landscape is cursed. All the interesting quantum simulations of chemistry and materials are more difficult than breaking ECC keys (which underlies the security of Bitcoin wallets).
English
This is the point most people are missing. You cannot simultaneously argue that small-scale quantum factoring demos are meaningless AND that quantum computers are far from breaking real cryptography. If the demos do not count, you cannot use their small scale as proof of safety. If they do count, the trajectory from 6 bits to 15 bits in seven months is a signal you cannot ignore. The critics want it both ways. Dismiss the progress when it is inconvenient. Cite the gap when it is reassuring. That is not risk management. That is motivated reasoning. The honest assessment is simple: the demonstrations are real, the trajectory is accelerating, and the gap is an engineering problem with well-funded teams working on it. Plan accordingly. @QtonicQuantum | qtonicquantum.com
Alex Pruden@apruden08
You realize that Shor's algorithm at any scale relies on pre and post classical processing, right? In the case of NISQ hardware, the classical post processing does more of the work, which makes small scale demos like this unscalable. But it doesn't make it not quantum. I'm on the record for saying number factoring doesn't matter as a benchmark. But some claim it does. So which is it? Quantum factoring demonstrations are measures of progress? Or not? The point of this work is to show you can't have it both ways.
English
Six months ago the largest quantum attack on elliptic curve cryptography was 6 bits. Today it is 15 bits. A 512x jump. Done by an independent researcher on cloud-accessible hardware. No national lab. No billion-dollar machine. A laptop and a quantum cloud account. 15 bits is not 256 bits. But 6 bits was not 15 bits seven months ago either. The theoretical papers keep dropping the resource estimates. The experimental demonstrations keep climbing the bit count. Both curves are moving. In the same direction. At the same time. Every organization still treating this as a distant theoretical risk should read this press release and ask a simple question: how many more doublings before it reaches you? @QtonicQuantum | @projecteleven @nic_carter
English
We take every claim seriously. If you have a working design for solving ECDLP at 256-bit security, the right venue is peer review and responsible disclosure. Project Eleven has a standing 1 BTC bounty for breaking a 256-bit elliptic curve key. Google used a zero-knowledge proof to validate their results without exposing attack vectors. Both paths exist for credible demonstrations. We are always open to a conversation. info@qtonicquantum.com
Desran@Desu_mationYT
@QtonicQuantum Who do I submit my room temperature photonic computer design to that is capable of cracking edclp ecc 256 bit today? I'm willing to talk about how it's here today not tomorrow. Are you ?
English
Dan Boneh co-authored the Google paper showing Bitcoin's signature breaks in 9 minutes. Then co-authored the Coinbase paper saying your crypto is safe today. Justin Drake called March 31 "a monumentous day" and said the results are "shocking." Then co-authored the Coinbase paper urging calm, measured preparation. Same researchers. Same month. Fire on one side. Calm on the other. This is not a contradiction. This is coordinated threat communication. One paper creates urgency. The other channels it. The question nobody is asking: when the people who published the attack also control the defense narrative, whose migration timeline are you on? Theirs or yours? Build your own. Based on your own risk profile, your own exposure, your own data. Not someone else's comfort level. @QtonicQuantum
nic carter@nic_carter
Strongly recommend reading Coinbase's Quantum Advisory Council report published this week. It could not be more explicit: coinbase.com/blog/coinbase-…
English
IonQ just published a 110-page architecture paper. Published today. Not a research proposal. A blueprint. 110 logical qubits on 2,514 physical qubits. One million T gates per day. And the most important line in the abstract: “can be built in the near term” using “hardware components that have been experimentally demonstrated.” Now do the math for Shor’s. ECC-256 needs roughly 1,200 logical qubits and 280-630 million T gates. Scale the walking cat architecture proportionally and you need 25,000-30,000 physical qubits. At current T gate throughput that takes a year or two. Double the factories and it halves. The code distance needs to improve for cryptographic-scale error suppression. But the architecture is modular. The scaling path is clear. And IonQ is not a research lab. It is the first quantum company to break $100 million in annual revenue. When they publish a build spec, treat it as a build spec. @QtonicQuantum |
Desmond@DesFrontierTech
$IONQ I spent today reading IonQ's walking cat paper. All of it. In 1945, John von Neumann published a complete engineering specification for a stored-program computer. Every classical computer built since has been built on that architecture. The walking cat paper is the quantum equivalent. The dense architecture runs 110 logical qubits executing one million T gates per day on 2,514 physical qubits total. The industry has assumed fault-tolerant quantum computing would require roughly 1,000 physical qubits for every logical qubit. The walking cat architecture achieves it with about 23. Cat states are quantum resource states that act as probes, sent to interact with logical qubits to check for errors without collapsing the underlying computation. Walking describes how those states move. Ions are physically shuttled through a chip across specialized zones, traveling to gate zones where operations are performed and measurement zones where results are read. Any ion can reach any zone. The architecture scales by adding zones, not wires. The design principles are called HMRS. Hierarchy, Modularity, Regularity, Simplicity. Pronounced hammers. IonQ's roadmap shows 100-256+ physical qubits in CY26. The 7th generation follows in 2027. 10,000 physical qubits. With 10,000 physical qubits and this architecture, IonQ can simulate a Heisenberg model on 100 sites to chemical accuracy within one month. That calculation is classically intractable. Shor's algorithm factors a 30-bit integer in less than one day on the same architecture. The two capabilities this blueprint requires, two-qubit gate fidelity above 99.99% and reliable ion transport, are capabilities IonQ's commercial systems have already achieved. Niccolo de Masi's word for what separates this from every other quantum roadmap is tangibility. Prior fault-tolerant architectures have typically combined different code families across components in ways that rarely survive the transition from paper to physical machine. The walking cat uses one framework throughout. Memory blocks, magic factories, and cat factories all draw from the same code families. A single decoder handles all of them. This evening Chad Sakac wrote publicly about gate speed and fidelity and closed with this. "We win that battle today. The walking cat paper shows how that evolves to winning tomorrow." The same properties that make IonQ's architecture win today are the exact properties the fault-tolerant architecture is built around. The advantage doesn't change as the era changes. It compounds. IonQ is publishing a seven-part series working through every layer of the architecture. Six more deep dives are coming. The paper is at arxiv.org/pdf/2604.19481. This is where I spent today.
English