See https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/555. If accurate, this would rule out lattice problems as a foundation for post-quantum cryptography - a very significant result.
Resolves YES if the high-level message of the paper is accurate, even if there are minor bugs that make the technical claims slightly weaker than advertised. Otherwise resolves NO.
Resolves when there's a consensus among experts according to my subjective judgement, speaking as someone who personally knows a lot of quantum cryptographers. Happy to answer questions in the comments about if some specific scenario would qualify for a YES or NO resolution.
I won't bet on this market.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ72 | |
| 2 | Ṁ49 | |
| 3 | Ṁ16 | |
| 4 | Ṁ15 | |
| 5 | Ṁ5 |
@PaulCrowley I suspect the probability would hover around 100% the whole time, in which case making such a market would be unprofitable given @Manifold's recent economic reforms, but I agree that would be an interesting market for someone besides me to make 🙂.
"Update on April 18: Step 9 of the algorithm contains a bug, which I don’t know how to fix. See the updated version of eprint/2024/555 - Section 3.5.9 (Page 37) for details. I sincerely thank Hongxun Wu and (independently) Thomas Vidick for finding the bug today.
Now the claim of showing a polynomial time quantum algorithm for solving LWE with polynomial modulus-noise ratios does not hold."
@Will I want to wait a day or two to get confirmation from other quantum cryptographers that the bug is unfixable before resolving NO.