What ever happened to Cloudflares wall of lava lamps?
JPMorgan researchers say they have generated and certified truly random numbers using a quantum computer, a world-first with potential security and trading uses.
Submitted 2 months ago by Tea@programming.dev to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.jpmorgan.com/technology/news/certified-randomness
Comments
IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 2 months ago
ikidd@lemmy.world 2 months ago
For anyone wondering: www.cloudflare.com/…/lava-lamp-encryption/
InnerScientist@lemmy.world 2 months ago
They don’t have quantum in the name.
drspod@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
They’ve pissed so many billions of dollars into quantum computing, at least they’re using it for something.
Did anyone tell them that you can use the noise in a semiconductor junction to produce truly random numbers too? You can buy one for a few pennies.
kameecoding@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Isn’t there a truly random generator based on Lava Lamps? Lol
einkorn@feddit.org 2 months ago
IIRC that’s Cloudflares random number generator.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It’s probably not truly random, when two centuries from now people have descended a few more levels down. Just like their result
Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Having worked in the field and having seen my fair share of supposedly “true” random numbers, I would really like to see how they would proof this bold claim.
AntelopeRoom@lemm.ee 2 months ago
First one to hack the bitcoin blockchain wins
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
I’m crypto-neutral and quantum-skeptical but this seems like a legit threat.
The other major cryptos have moved to a proof-of-stake which is more centralized, but also more flexible. For example I can easily imagine ETH upgrading to post-quantum cryptography.
But Bitcoin is much less flexible. It has never evolved past proof-of-work. It’s much harder for me to imagine a unified update for BTC.
Electricblush@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I mean, your non-upgraded coins being worthless should be a pretty solid motivator.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 2 months ago
*as random as any other method
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
DancingBear@midwest.social 2 months ago
For a number to be truly random (assuming positive integers) wouldn’t it have to be anywhere between 1 and infinity? What good is a 20 million digit long integer? Or a 103 billion digit long integer?
What I mean is, is it possible to even have a truly random number within a set of rules, say 1-100?
I guess I already gave a rule by saying positive integers, I don’t know this is crazy!
But have you ever come up with a random number on weeeeeeeeed, mannnnn
scratchee@feddit.uk 2 months ago
If you select a number “fairly” (ie every number equally likely, not skewed towards smaller numbers) and your scale goes to infinity, I’m pretty sure the number you get out will be infinitely long, almost always (sure, you could get the number 10, but infinity is… infinite, so any number that gets picked will tend to be beyond anything we ever experience or know how to write down)
To put it another way, using your scheme, we’d only ever need 1 random number ever, it’d just keep printing forever and we could cut up chunks of it whenever we needed some random and it would just keep printing on and on.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The issue is no random number generator can be truely random because the number will always be seeded by something that isn’t technically random
DancingBear@midwest.social 2 months ago
That’s like the sunsets of infinity which are also infinite? I’ve seen videos online that are really interesting to me but I’m no mathematician
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
literally every new discovery: exists
capitalists: can we make money with this
AstroLightz@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Is it truly random though? If in a specific point in time, the number generated is always the same, then that’s not truly random.
Absolute true randomness would be a different result every time it is generated in that specific point in time.
A bit Sci-Fi and probably unrealistic opinion, but it does make me curious about how this kind of randomness could be implemented.
ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 2 months ago
I mean, when you collapse that logic you’re effectively saying random is the same thing as non-deterministic. But they’re different things, because even if an infinitesimally exact moment in time may “always” produce the same result, because the arrow of time only points in one direction, no such deterministic result can ever be replicated, and if the result cannot be replicated, then what is the difference from random?
FunnyUsername@lemmy.world 2 months ago
this is not a bad point but it also feels a bit like moving the goal posts
jonne@infosec.pub 2 months ago
The random number they generated is 53.
pdxfed@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Mine said 42. I guess the only thing left I’m wondering is what was the question?
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Wrong, it was 4