🏅 Top traders

@Dig why did you resolve this? What's the source?

@adssx I would also like to see the evidence! Per one of my earlier comments, the resolution criteria on this market are flimsy enough that a YES is practical (as a matter of technicality)

(I did not bet in this market for bad-resolution-criteria reasons - N/Aing it also seems reasonable)

@retr0id I debated between Yes and N/A based on your comment from a few months ago. I decided that Yes makes more sense purely from the loose criteria of a quantum computer here.

@Dig Can you please point to one reliable source confirming that is has been broken?

@Dig This doesn't make sense to apply a "loose criteria" here. The title implies that quantum computing does the breaking here. This was common knowledge at market creation that classical computers are able to break RSA-256

@Dig please fix this

https://manifold.markets/dieselbaby1337/will-a-quantum-computer-prove-capab

Is there a difference between these two markets?

@adssx That market concerns RSA-2048, whereas this one is RSA-256

Wish I read the description.

At that small key size why would you bother with a quantum computer?

At which key size?

@a2bb 256

@Dig As another comment hinted, a modulus of this size has already been factored by a classical computer decades ago.

IMHO, seems like this market should probably resolve YES on account of this fact. Perhaps you would say that this doesn't meet the criteria because "quantum computing" wasn't involved? But in that case, it seems like we should clarify what qualifies as "quantum computing" here.

@BoltonBailey Yes, I'd say it resolves YES on this basis. RSA-256 is trivially broken on a laptop, and if you arbitrarily involve a quantum computer with one of the steps (adding two small numbers...) then you've just used a quantum computer to break RSA-256