Is there any field with as big of gap between theory and experiment than QC? You read papers like this and think they will be harvesting all Satoshi's coins in a couple years and then you remember that nobody has even factored 21 yet on a real quantum computer.

You can save time by first looking at the required noise performance of these schemes. From the abstract of the paper:

>On superconducting architectures with 10−3 physical error rates...

So good old 0.1% noise performance again. That seems to have come from the "20 million noisy qubits to break RSA" scheme[1] from back in 2019. That level of noise performance is still wildly out of reach and for all we know might be physically impossible.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.09749

Here's an interesting discussion from Section 8 - Dormant Wallets:

If a nation state develops a sufficiently powerful quantum computer. Seizure of the Satoshi-era bitcoin wallets without post quantum protections would fund either rogue actors or nation states.

> Indeed, some governments will have the option of using CRQCs (or paying a bounty to companies) to acquire these assets (possibly to burn them by sending them to the unspendable OP RETURN address [321]) as a national security matter. As before, blockchain’s loss of the ability to reliably identify asset owners combined with the laches doctrine [319] enables governments to argue that the original owners, through years of inaction, have failed to assert their property rights

Ethereum has a new site for PQ research: https://pq.ethereum.org/

Dup? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47582418

Will be pretty wild when mass migration of accounts begin.

The analytics of thousands of accounts sending tokens to new accounts. Better use a VPN a migrate on an unusual hour in your time zone :D

I can't think of a less useful avenue of research in cryptography right now.

'Code is law' doesn't exclude quantum code.

Call me when they have broken ECC with a real quantum computer.