Mastercard Develops Quantum-Safe Payment Cards

Swan wrote:A new generation of contactless cards from Mastercard has been approved as meeting security specifications designed to protect against attacks from both traditional networks, and attacks from quantum computers, purple leprechauns, ninja cheese turtles, la chupa cabra and other things that don't exist.

Swan wrote:Near-future quantum computers could decrypt even the most secure encryption that currently keeps financial transactions secure from bad actors.

Swan wrote: To combat this, Mastercard researchers released quantum-resistant enhanced contactless specifications in January 2021.

Swan wrote:In July, Mastercard announced a multi-year partnership with quantum computing company D-Wave to investigate quantum-powered applications for the payments industry.

HarveyH55 wrote:
More marketing hype, since quantum computers are still a lab toy, at best. Why would MasterCard need to secure against Quantum attacks this early, when there is only lab prototypes, at best, with limited use. The only bad actors would be university employees, maybe the government. If quantum computers are such a threat, no way they are going to be widely available. What government will allow anybody with the cash, to own a tool capable of hacking into any computer on the planet? With permits, licences and such, we can own and use most anything. But, there are still quite a few things that will never happen. How many privately own nuclear bombs are out there? Can anybody own a Cruise missile? There are weaponized drones, but I don't think you can buy them, and likely to have some legal trouble if caught with one.

But, as with any security, humans are always going to be the weak link. If the card can be read at the point-of-sale, it can be read by anyone. This is before any badass, super-secure server gets involved. Compatibly with existing means it's still compatible with existing hacking... Humans are lazy and imperfect. Regardless of the rules, policies, guidelines, regulations, people are going to find and easy, more convenient way, that takes the least effort. It's in our DNA, and why we make and use tools. Building tools, that make our lives more difficult goes against our nature.

I'm still highly skeptical that quantum computing exist, as defined by the theory of how it could work. I tend to believe the existing hardware only simulates how it's suppose to work, using existing/traditional technology. We never really fully exploited the existing technology, and still plenty of room to play. A tradition computer operates on binary numbers, 1s and 0s. In the chips though, these are actually voltage levels. A 1, doesn't have to be precisely +5 volts, and a 0 isn't exactly 0 volts. Lot of room to play, if we want to add complexity. A third state could be added with the use of negative voltage. We have the precision to set many states, by assigning states to various voltage levels. We use low voltages, to reduce heat generated. We could use higher voltages, to expand how many states a bit could have, but we would need to remove heat quickly, to keep it stable. There could be a new hardware coming out, but doubt it's the theoretical 'quantum' kind. They are likely just using existing technology in a different approach.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:A new generation of contactless cards from Mastercard has been approved as meeting security specifications designed to protect against attacks from both traditional networks, and attacks from quantum computers, purple leprechauns, ninja cheese turtles, la chupa cabra and other things that don't exist.

Wow! They actually made it through the approval process? I never thought they'd get that far.

You must be totally correct. I'm convinced.

Swan wrote:Near-future quantum computers could decrypt even the most secure encryption that currently keeps financial transactions secure from bad actors.

It's good that they are addressing such absolute certainty with such a definite response.

Swan wrote: To combat this, Mastercard researchers released quantum-resistant enhanced contactless specifications in January 2021.

Guess what specifications have never been released. Why do you think that is the case?

Swan wrote:In July, Mastercard announced a multi-year partnership with quantum computing company D-Wave to investigate quantum-powered applications for the payments industry.

How do the previous "accomplishments" mentioned above jive with the future tense of D-Wave looking "to investigate" them?

Did someone jump the gun on claiming accomplishments/achievements?

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Wow that is an easy one as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue and still open in less time than analogue would open. Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes to reflect the new threats that idiots like you claim are not happening. On the other hand no one will be hacking your billy carter beer can collection

Silly girl

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Wow that is an easy one as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue and still open in less time than analogue would open. Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes to reflect the new threats that idiots like you claim are not happening. On the other hand no one will be hacking your billy carter beer can collection

Silly girl

How would MasterCard know what needs protecting, since there is no Quantum computer outside the lab? Basically, the can market anything, but doesn't mean they are actually addressing anything. There cover all but $50 of fraudulent charges policy, is probably the only protection they can actually offer. They won't actually have a quantum computer to implement any changes for a while... What they play with in a lab, is seldom the same as what goes into production. A whole lot of refinement goes into most any commercial product. It needs to be reliable, repeatable, and useful to people without a specific Phd. Price tag also figures into it quite a bit. How many units can you sell, at $100 million+, each? Right now, only a vision is being sold. Maybe the lab guys are making huge strides in a certain direction, but there is no reason others can't jump in, take a slightly different path, with similar results, but a better product to take to market. We saw this with early desktop computers, with few standards. Expansion cards from one company, weren't compatible with others. Apple was on of the worst, since they didn't want anyone messing with what they sold. You had to buy genuine Apple parts, at a premium price. Some even need an authorized technician to install, or you had a paperweight. Always almost cheaper, just to buy the new, upgraded model. I prefer to repair and modify what I own, rather than let a company dictate what I can and can't do.

You can buy padlocks, supposedly pick-proof... But, a theft can still just cut the shackle...

Swan wrote:
https://www.quantumbusinessnews.com/applications/mastercard-develops-quantum-safe-payment-cards

A new generation of contactless cards from Mastercard has been approved as meeting security specifications designed to protect against attacks from both traditional and quantum computers. ...deleted rest of marketing hype...

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
More marketing hype, since quantum computers are still a lab toy, at best. Why would MasterCard need to secure against Quantum attacks this early, when there is only lab prototypes, at best, with limited use. The only bad actors would be university employees, maybe the government. If quantum computers are such a threat, no way they are going to be widely available. What government will allow anybody with the cash, to own a tool capable of hacking into any computer on the planet? With permits, licences and such, we can own and use most anything. But, there are still quite a few things that will never happen. How many privately own nuclear bombs are out there? Can anybody own a Cruise missile? There are weaponized drones, but I don't think you can buy them, and likely to have some legal trouble if caught with one.

But, as with any security, humans are always going to be the weak link. If the card can be read at the point-of-sale, it can be read by anyone. This is before any badass, super-secure server gets involved. Compatibly with existing means it's still compatible with existing hacking... Humans are lazy and imperfect. Regardless of the rules, policies, guidelines, regulations, people are going to find and easy, more convenient way, that takes the least effort. It's in our DNA, and why we make and use tools. Building tools, that make our lives more difficult goes against our nature.

I'm still highly skeptical that quantum computing exist, as defined by the theory of how it could work. I tend to believe the existing hardware only simulates how it's suppose to work, using existing/traditional technology. We never really fully exploited the existing technology, and still plenty of room to play. A tradition computer operates on binary numbers, 1s and 0s. In the chips though, these are actually voltage levels. A 1, doesn't have to be precisely +5 volts, and a 0 isn't exactly 0 volts. Lot of room to play, if we want to add complexity. A third state could be added with the use of negative voltage. We have the precision to set many states, by assigning states to various voltage levels. We use low voltages, to reduce heat generated. We could use higher voltages, to expand how many states a bit could have, but we would need to remove heat quickly, to keep it stable. There could be a new hardware coming out, but doubt it's the theoretical 'quantum' kind. They are likely just using existing technology in a different approach.

Could a lab toy in chinka empty your bank account?

Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

Yawning

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:A new generation of contactless cards from Mastercard has been approved as meeting security specifications designed to protect against attacks from both traditional networks, and attacks from quantum computers, purple leprechauns, ninja cheese turtles, la chupa cabra and other things that don't exist.

Wow! They actually made it through the approval process? I never thought they'd get that far.

You must be totally correct. I'm convinced.

Swan wrote:Near-future quantum computers could decrypt even the most secure encryption that currently keeps financial transactions secure from bad actors.

It's good that they are addressing such absolute certainty with such a definite response.

Swan wrote: To combat this, Mastercard researchers released quantum-resistant enhanced contactless specifications in January 2021.

Guess what specifications have never been released. Why do you think that is the case?

Swan wrote:In July, Mastercard announced a multi-year partnership with quantum computing company D-Wave to investigate quantum-powered applications for the payments industry.

How do the previous "accomplishments" mentioned above jive with the future tense of D-Wave looking "to investigate" them?

Did someone jump the gun on claiming accomplishments/achievements?

Actually your claim is that none of this is happening. Well it seems that the World is leaving you behind once again.

PS. Mastercard actually sets their own specs, nimrod

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Wow that is an easy one as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue and still open in less time than analogue would open. Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes to reflect the new threats that idiots like you claim are not happening. On the other hand no one will be hacking your billy carter beer can collection

Silly girl

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Wow that is an easy one as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue and still open in less time than analogue would open. Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes to reflect the new threats that idiots like you claim are not happening. On the other hand no one will be hacking your billy carter beer can collection

Silly girl

How would MasterCard know what needs protecting, since there is no Quantum computer outside the lab? Basically, the can market anything, but doesn't mean they are actually addressing anything. There cover all but $50 of fraudulent charges policy, is probably the only protection they can actually offer. They won't actually have a quantum computer to implement any changes for a while... What they play with in a lab, is seldom the same as what goes into production. A whole lot of refinement goes into most any commercial product. It needs to be reliable, repeatable, and useful to people without a specific Phd. Price tag also figures into it quite a bit. How many units can you sell, at $100 million+, each? Right now, only a vision is being sold. Maybe the lab guys are making huge strides in a certain direction, but there is no reason others can't jump in, take a slightly different path, with similar results, but a better product to take to market. We saw this with early desktop computers, with few standards. Expansion cards from one company, weren't compatible with others. Apple was on of the worst, since they didn't want anyone messing with what they sold. You had to buy genuine Apple parts, at a premium price. Some even need an authorized technician to install, or you had a paperweight. Always almost cheaper, just to buy the new, upgraded model. I prefer to repair and modify what I own, rather than let a company dictate what I can and can't do.

You can buy padlocks, supposedly pick-proof... But, a theft can still just cut the shackle...

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Wow that is an easy one as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue and still open in less time than analogue would open. Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes to reflect the new threats that idiots like you claim are not happening. On the other hand no one will be hacking your billy carter beer can collection

Silly girl

How would MasterCard know what needs protecting, since there is no Quantum computer outside the lab? Basically, the can market anything, but doesn't mean they are actually addressing anything. There cover all but $50 of fraudulent charges policy, is probably the only protection they can actually offer. They won't actually have a quantum computer to implement any changes for a while... What they play with in a lab, is seldom the same as what goes into production. A whole lot of refinement goes into most any commercial product. It needs to be reliable, repeatable, and useful to people without a specific Phd. Price tag also figures into it quite a bit. How many units can you sell, at $100 million+, each? Right now, only a vision is being sold. Maybe the lab guys are making huge strides in a certain direction, but there is no reason others can't jump in, take a slightly different path, with similar results, but a better product to take to market. We saw this with early desktop computers, with few standards. Expansion cards from one company, weren't compatible with others. Apple was on of the worst, since they didn't want anyone messing with what they sold. You had to buy genuine Apple parts, at a premium price. Some even need an authorized technician to install, or you had a paperweight. Always almost cheaper, just to buy the new, upgraded model. I prefer to repair and modify what I own, rather than let a company dictate what I can and can't do.

You can buy padlocks, supposedly pick-proof... But, a theft can still just cut the shackle...

LOL the fastest qubits are currently in chinka, and as we know chinka labs are all communist government owned and used for terrorism. Man u is stoopud

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://www.quantumbusinessnews.com/applications/mastercard-develops-quantum-safe-payment-cards

A new generation of contactless cards from Mastercard has been approved as meeting security specifications designed to protect against attacks from both traditional and quantum computers. ...deleted rest of marketing hype...

Pretty easy, since there is no such thing as a quantum computer.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Wow that is an easy one as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue and still open in less time than analogue would open. Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes to reflect the new threats that idiots like you claim are not happening. On the other hand no one will be hacking your billy carter beer can collection

Silly girl

How would MasterCard know what needs protecting, since there is no Quantum computer outside the lab? Basically, the can market anything, but doesn't mean they are actually addressing anything. There cover all but $50 of fraudulent charges policy, is probably the only protection they can actually offer. They won't actually have a quantum computer to implement any changes for a while... What they play with in a lab, is seldom the same as what goes into production. A whole lot of refinement goes into most any commercial product. It needs to be reliable, repeatable, and useful to people without a specific Phd. Price tag also figures into it quite a bit. How many units can you sell, at $100 million+, each? Right now, only a vision is being sold. Maybe the lab guys are making huge strides in a certain direction, but there is no reason others can't jump in, take a slightly different path, with similar results, but a better product to take to market. We saw this with early desktop computers, with few standards. Expansion cards from one company, weren't compatible with others. Apple was on of the worst, since they didn't want anyone messing with what they sold. You had to buy genuine Apple parts, at a premium price. Some even need an authorized technician to install, or you had a paperweight. Always almost cheaper, just to buy the new, upgraded model. I prefer to repair and modify what I own, rather than let a company dictate what I can and can't do.

You can buy padlocks, supposedly pick-proof... But, a theft can still just cut the shackle...

LOL the fastest qubits are currently in chinka, and as we know chinka labs are all communist government owned and used for terrorism. Man u is stoopud

Where is chinka? There is no such thing as a 'qubit'. How is guessing a password 'terrorism'??

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Wow that is an easy one as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue and still open in less time than analogue would open. Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes to reflect the new threats that idiots like you claim are not happening. On the other hand no one will be hacking your billy carter beer can collection

Silly girl

How would MasterCard know what needs protecting, since there is no Quantum computer outside the lab? Basically, the can market anything, but doesn't mean they are actually addressing anything. There cover all but $50 of fraudulent charges policy, is probably the only protection they can actually offer. They won't actually have a quantum computer to implement any changes for a while... What they play with in a lab, is seldom the same as what goes into production. A whole lot of refinement goes into most any commercial product. It needs to be reliable, repeatable, and useful to people without a specific Phd. Price tag also figures into it quite a bit. How many units can you sell, at $100 million+, each? Right now, only a vision is being sold. Maybe the lab guys are making huge strides in a certain direction, but there is no reason others can't jump in, take a slightly different path, with similar results, but a better product to take to market. We saw this with early desktop computers, with few standards. Expansion cards from one company, weren't compatible with others. Apple was on of the worst, since they didn't want anyone messing with what they sold. You had to buy genuine Apple parts, at a premium price. Some even need an authorized technician to install, or you had a paperweight. Always almost cheaper, just to buy the new, upgraded model. I prefer to repair and modify what I own, rather than let a company dictate what I can and can't do.

You can buy padlocks, supposedly pick-proof... But, a theft can still just cut the shackle...

LOL the fastest qubits are currently in chinka, and as we know chinka labs are all communist government owned and used for terrorism. Man u is stoopud

Where is chinka? There is no such thing as a 'qubit'. How is guessing a password 'terrorism'??

The chinkas or ruskies hack the password then ransom the info back to the owner. It's called terrorism on Earth, not sure what it is called on your planet. LOL I guess you have no dog eaters in the NSA building. All those years in law school led you to here where you will achieve nothing just like the last platoon of asses..............

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Wow that is an easy one as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue and still open in less time than analogue would open. Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes to reflect the new threats that idiots like you claim are not happening. On the other hand no one will be hacking your billy carter beer can collection

Silly girl

How would MasterCard know what needs protecting, since there is no Quantum computer outside the lab? Basically, the can market anything, but doesn't mean they are actually addressing anything. There cover all but $50 of fraudulent charges policy, is probably the only protection they can actually offer. They won't actually have a quantum computer to implement any changes for a while... What they play with in a lab, is seldom the same as what goes into production. A whole lot of refinement goes into most any commercial product. It needs to be reliable, repeatable, and useful to people without a specific Phd. Price tag also figures into it quite a bit. How many units can you sell, at $100 million+, each? Right now, only a vision is being sold. Maybe the lab guys are making huge strides in a certain direction, but there is no reason others can't jump in, take a slightly different path, with similar results, but a better product to take to market. We saw this with early desktop computers, with few standards. Expansion cards from one company, weren't compatible with others. Apple was on of the worst, since they didn't want anyone messing with what they sold. You had to buy genuine Apple parts, at a premium price. Some even need an authorized technician to install, or you had a paperweight. Always almost cheaper, just to buy the new, upgraded model. I prefer to repair and modify what I own, rather than let a company dictate what I can and can't do.

You can buy padlocks, supposedly pick-proof... But, a theft can still just cut the shackle...

LOL the fastest qubits are currently in chinka, and as we know chinka labs are all communist government owned and used for terrorism. Man u is stoopud

Where is chinka? There is no such thing as a 'qubit'. How is guessing a password 'terrorism'??

The chinkas or ruskies hack the password then ransom the info back to the owner. It's called terrorism on Earth, not sure what it is called on your planet. LOL I guess you have no dog eaters in the NSA building. All those years in law school led you to here where you will achieve nothing just like the last platoon of asses..............

Ah. So you don't know what 'terrorism' means either.

Swan wrote:Wow that is an easy one

Swan wrote: ... as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue

Swan wrote: Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes

The idea of a quantum computer was first proposed in the 1980s: A miracle machine that could outperform classical computers on special tasks. Since then, many groups have invested in research that could make this dream real. Now, the devices are inching ever closer to existing in the real-world as Fujitsu and the Riken research institute plan to jointly develop and sell quantum computers to corporations starting April 2023, becoming the first to do so in Japan, Nikkei Asia reported earlier this week.

These quantum computers will likely be used in applications such as financial forecasting, and the development of new materials and medicines.


If the timeline sticks, Fujitsu and Riken's machines will beat out Google's commercial quantum computers, which the company has previously said would be ready by 2029. Since 2019, IBM has been offering a commercial quantum-classical hybrid service for companies to test. However, IBM says that it can have a machine capable of quantum advantage (in which it can reliably and accurately solve a problem better than a classical computer) ready by 2025.

The hype behind quantum computers stems from the belief that the machines will be better than the best supercomputers of today at solving certain calculations, like natural science simulations and optimization tasks (i.e. finding the shortest route from point A to point B—also known as the traveling salesman problem).

This stems from a quirk these computers have: They don't represent information in binary 0-or-1 bits, but rather as qubits, which can have a value of 0, 1, or both at the same time due to the quantum property of superposition. But to exhibit quantum properties, objects must either be very small or very cold. That means qubits can either be built from a tiny particle like an atom, or from something like a superconducting material kept cold in a cryogenic container.


Fujitsu's computer will reportedly have 64 qubits, although the company wants to produce a 1,000-qubit machine by April 2026. This would sit between Google's latest record, 54 qubits, and IBM's, which was 127 qubits.

[Related: Chicago now has a 124-mile quantum network. This is what it's for.]

"Like Google and IBM, Fujitsu will adopt a method of computing with a 'superconductive' circuit that is cooled to extremely low temperatures to eliminate electrical resistance," according to Nikkei. Superconducting qubits tend to be the most popular materials used in quantum computers because they can be manufactured in a way similar to silicon chips. However, other experimental designs, like trapped-ion quantum computers, exist as well.


For the past decade, several companies have been racing to build the first commercial quantum computer, and not everyone is doing it the same way. While there's been a lot of momentum and groundbreaking research, these machines are undeniably difficult to control (as of present, they're still finicky, error-prone, and qubits can only ephemerally hold onto their quantum states). It's yet to be seen which group pulls ahead in practical tests in the real world—when a quantum computer can solve a modern problem better than a classical computer.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Wow that is an easy one

... except that you are about to show otherwise by not being able to provide the architectures you gullibly believe "have been released."

After all, you have never seen these architectures because the people who do your thinking for you will not allow you to request them, or even ask for proof of their existence. You have been told what to regurgitate and you have every intention of OBEYING.

MORAL:. There are no architectures of the non-existent.

Swan wrote: ... as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue

You are not a programmer. Ask me how I know.

MORAL: Non-existent code is the simplest.

Swan wrote: Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes

It's not "strengthening" if they are only adding protections against non-existent threats, e.g. purple leprechauns, chupacabra, quantum computing, ninja cheese turtles, etc...

I realize that you are embarrassed every time you gullibly believe what you are told to believe. This is why the best policy is to not have anyone do your thinking for you.

.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Wow that is an easy one as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue and still open in less time than analogue would open. Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes to reflect the new threats that idiots like you claim are not happening. On the other hand no one will be hacking your billy carter beer can collection

Silly girl

How would MasterCard know what needs protecting, since there is no Quantum computer outside the lab? Basically, the can market anything, but doesn't mean they are actually addressing anything. There cover all but $50 of fraudulent charges policy, is probably the only protection they can actually offer. They won't actually have a quantum computer to implement any changes for a while... What they play with in a lab, is seldom the same as what goes into production. A whole lot of refinement goes into most any commercial product. It needs to be reliable, repeatable, and useful to people without a specific Phd. Price tag also figures into it quite a bit. How many units can you sell, at $100 million+, each? Right now, only a vision is being sold. Maybe the lab guys are making huge strides in a certain direction, but there is no reason others can't jump in, take a slightly different path, with similar results, but a better product to take to market. We saw this with early desktop computers, with few standards. Expansion cards from one company, weren't compatible with others. Apple was on of the worst, since they didn't want anyone messing with what they sold. You had to buy genuine Apple parts, at a premium price. Some even need an authorized technician to install, or you had a paperweight. Always almost cheaper, just to buy the new, upgraded model. I prefer to repair and modify what I own, rather than let a company dictate what I can and can't do.

You can buy padlocks, supposedly pick-proof... But, a theft can still just cut the shackle...

LOL the fastest qubits are currently in chinka, and as we know chinka labs are all communist government owned and used for terrorism. Man u is stoopud

Where is chinka? There is no such thing as a 'qubit'. How is guessing a password 'terrorism'??

The chinkas or ruskies hack the password then ransom the info back to the owner. It's called terrorism on Earth, not sure what it is called on your planet. LOL I guess you have no dog eaters in the NSA building. All those years in law school led you to here where you will achieve nothing just like the last platoon of asses..............

Ah. So you don't know what 'terrorism' means either.

Actually I know exactly what terrorism is, you on the other hand clearly do not

Swan wrote:
The Department of Justice has declared that ransomware will now be treated with the same level of vigilance as terrorism.

Swan wrote:
FBI Director Christopher Wray recently compared the current cyber-threat landscape to the challenge posed by the 9/11 aftermath, and several officials have followed suit in their declarations.

Swan wrote:
During his confirmation hearing for the new position of National Cyber Director, Chris Inglis – arguably the most senior individual for combatting state and non-state cyber actors – said the US government must "seize back the initiative that has too long been ceded to criminals and rogue nations... and bring to bear consequences on those who hold us at risk."

https://darktrace.com/blog/the-elevation-of-cyber-crime-to-terrorism-threat-status#:~:text=The%20Department%20of%20Justice%20has,followed%20suit%20in%20their%20declarations.

HarveyH55 wrote:
https://www.popsci.com/technology/fujitsu-riken-quantum-computer/

The idea of a quantum computer was first proposed in the 1980s: A miracle machine that could outperform classical computers on special tasks. Since then, many groups have invested in research that could make this dream real. Now, the devices are inching ever closer to existing in the real-world as Fujitsu and the Riken research institute plan to jointly develop and sell quantum computers to corporations starting April 2023, becoming the first to do so in Japan, Nikkei Asia reported earlier this week.

These quantum computers will likely be used in applications such as financial forecasting, and the development of new materials and medicines.


If the timeline sticks, Fujitsu and Riken's machines will beat out Google's commercial quantum computers, which the company has previously said would be ready by 2029. Since 2019, IBM has been offering a commercial quantum-classical hybrid service for companies to test. However, IBM says that it can have a machine capable of quantum advantage (in which it can reliably and accurately solve a problem better than a classical computer) ready by 2025.

The hype behind quantum computers stems from the belief that the machines will be better than the best supercomputers of today at solving certain calculations, like natural science simulations and optimization tasks (i.e. finding the shortest route from point A to point B—also known as the traveling salesman problem).

This stems from a quirk these computers have: They don't represent information in binary 0-or-1 bits, but rather as qubits, which can have a value of 0, 1, or both at the same time due to the quantum property of superposition. But to exhibit quantum properties, objects must either be very small or very cold. That means qubits can either be built from a tiny particle like an atom, or from something like a superconducting material kept cold in a cryogenic container.


Fujitsu's computer will reportedly have 64 qubits, although the company wants to produce a 1,000-qubit machine by April 2026. This would sit between Google's latest record, 54 qubits, and IBM's, which was 127 qubits.

[Related: Chicago now has a 124-mile quantum network. This is what it's for.]

"Like Google and IBM, Fujitsu will adopt a method of computing with a 'superconductive' circuit that is cooled to extremely low temperatures to eliminate electrical resistance," according to Nikkei. Superconducting qubits tend to be the most popular materials used in quantum computers because they can be manufactured in a way similar to silicon chips. However, other experimental designs, like trapped-ion quantum computers, exist as well.


For the past decade, several companies have been racing to build the first commercial quantum computer, and not everyone is doing it the same way. While there's been a lot of momentum and groundbreaking research, these machines are undeniably difficult to control (as of present, they're still finicky, error-prone, and qubits can only ephemerally hold onto their quantum states). It's yet to be seen which group pulls ahead in practical tests in the real world—when a quantum computer can solve a modern problem better than a classical computer.

Seems that quantum computers have a limited range for application.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Interestingly, they seem ideal for climate models... Or anything predictive, where there is no way to tell if it's results are accurate. Faith-base computing... China has a desktop model selling now for $50k... Which was the closest I could find to actual hardware for sale. No actual product details for most. Was really hard to tell if some companies actually sold the hardware, or just a cloud-based service. Still seems kind of sketchy, and over-hyped.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Wow that is an easy one

... except that you are about to show otherwise by not being able to provide the architectures you gullibly believe "have been released."

After all, you have never seen these architectures because the people who do your thinking for you will not allow you to request them, or even ask for proof of their existence. You have been told what to regurgitate and you have every intention of OBEYING.

MORAL:. There are no architectures of the non-existent.

Swan wrote: ... as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue

You are not a programmer. Ask me how I know.

MORAL: Non-existent code is the simplest.

Swan wrote: Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes

It's not "strengthening" if they are only adding protections against non-existent threats, e.g. purple leprechauns, chupacabra, quantum computing, ninja cheese turtles, etc...

I realize that you are embarrassed every time you gullibly believe what you are told to believe. This is why the best policy is to not have anyone do your thinking for you.

.

Actually, if Mastercard gave away their security architecture it would instantaneously be worthless,
...removed Mantra 1a...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Wow that is an easy one as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue and still open in less time than analogue would open. Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes to reflect the new threats that idiots like you claim are not happening. On the other hand no one will be hacking your billy carter beer can collection

Silly girl

How would MasterCard know what needs protecting, since there is no Quantum computer outside the lab? Basically, the can market anything, but doesn't mean they are actually addressing anything. There cover all but $50 of fraudulent charges policy, is probably the only protection they can actually offer. They won't actually have a quantum computer to implement any changes for a while... What they play with in a lab, is seldom the same as what goes into production. A whole lot of refinement goes into most any commercial product. It needs to be reliable, repeatable, and useful to people without a specific Phd. Price tag also figures into it quite a bit. How many units can you sell, at $100 million+, each? Right now, only a vision is being sold. Maybe the lab guys are making huge strides in a certain direction, but there is no reason others can't jump in, take a slightly different path, with similar results, but a better product to take to market. We saw this with early desktop computers, with few standards. Expansion cards from one company, weren't compatible with others. Apple was on of the worst, since they didn't want anyone messing with what they sold. You had to buy genuine Apple parts, at a premium price. Some even need an authorized technician to install, or you had a paperweight. Always almost cheaper, just to buy the new, upgraded model. I prefer to repair and modify what I own, rather than let a company dictate what I can and can't do.

You can buy padlocks, supposedly pick-proof... But, a theft can still just cut the shackle...

LOL the fastest qubits are currently in chinka, and as we know chinka labs are all communist government owned and used for terrorism. Man u is stoopud

Where is chinka? There is no such thing as a 'qubit'. How is guessing a password 'terrorism'??

The chinkas or ruskies hack the password then ransom the info back to the owner. It's called terrorism on Earth, not sure what it is called on your planet. LOL I guess you have no dog eaters in the NSA building. All those years in law school led you to here where you will achieve nothing just like the last platoon of asses..............

Ah. So you don't know what 'terrorism' means either.

Actually I know exactly what terrorism is, you on the other hand clearly do not

Nah. Ransomware is not terrorism.

Swan wrote:
The Department of Justice has declared that ransomware will now be treated with the same level of vigilance as terrorism.

Meh. The government cannot redefine 'terrorism' either. Maybe they should stop using such insecure operating systems.

Swan wrote:
FBI Director Christopher Wray recently compared the current cyber-threat landscape to the challenge posed by the 9/11 aftermath, and several officials have followed suit in their declarations.

Obviously a Windows user. What a moron.

Swan wrote:
During his confirmation hearing for the new position of National Cyber Director, Chris Inglis – arguably the most senior individual for combatting state and non-state cyber actors – said the US government must "seize back the initiative that has too long been ceded to criminals and rogue nations... and bring to bear consequences on those who hold us at risk."

https://darktrace.com/blog/the-elevation-of-cyber-crime-to-terrorism-threat-status#:~:text=The%20Department%20of%20Justice%20has,followed%20suit%20in%20their%20declarations.

Nope. There really isn't a risk. This is just a government agency fear mongering to justify it's own existence again.

Don't run Windows. That operating system effectively has a giant 'Kick Me' sign on it's back, and people...well...kick it.

Most government agencies have notoriously easy to hack systems. They still haven't figured out even the most basic security techniques, despite the NSA.

Swan wrote:So the government cannot define terrorism, but you can. Very interesting, please feel free laying back on the couch and telling us why your mother did that to you.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Wow that is an easy one as a quantum encrypted code could be a hundred million times more complex than analogue and still open in less time than analogue would open. Furthermore, all that Mastercard is actually doing is strengthening their codes to reflect the new threats that idiots like you claim are not happening. On the other hand no one will be hacking your billy carter beer can collection

Silly girl

How would MasterCard know what needs protecting, since there is no Quantum computer outside the lab? Basically, the can market anything, but doesn't mean they are actually addressing anything. There cover all but $50 of fraudulent charges policy, is probably the only protection they can actually offer. They won't actually have a quantum computer to implement any changes for a while... What they play with in a lab, is seldom the same as what goes into production. A whole lot of refinement goes into most any commercial product. It needs to be reliable, repeatable, and useful to people without a specific Phd. Price tag also figures into it quite a bit. How many units can you sell, at $100 million+, each? Right now, only a vision is being sold. Maybe the lab guys are making huge strides in a certain direction, but there is no reason others can't jump in, take a slightly different path, with similar results, but a better product to take to market. We saw this with early desktop computers, with few standards. Expansion cards from one company, weren't compatible with others. Apple was on of the worst, since they didn't want anyone messing with what they sold. You had to buy genuine Apple parts, at a premium price. Some even need an authorized technician to install, or you had a paperweight. Always almost cheaper, just to buy the new, upgraded model. I prefer to repair and modify what I own, rather than let a company dictate what I can and can't do.

You can buy padlocks, supposedly pick-proof... But, a theft can still just cut the shackle...

LOL the fastest qubits are currently in chinka, and as we know chinka labs are all communist government owned and used for terrorism. Man u is stoopud

Where is chinka? There is no such thing as a 'qubit'. How is guessing a password 'terrorism'??

The chinkas or ruskies hack the password then ransom the info back to the owner. It's called terrorism on Earth, not sure what it is called on your planet. LOL I guess you have no dog eaters in the NSA building. All those years in law school led you to here where you will achieve nothing just like the last platoon of asses..............

Ah. So you don't know what 'terrorism' means either.

Actually I know exactly what terrorism is, you on the other hand clearly do not

Nah. Ransomware is not terrorism.

Swan wrote:
The Department of Justice has declared that ransomware will now be treated with the same level of vigilance as terrorism.

Meh. The government cannot redefine 'terrorism' either. Maybe they should stop using such insecure operating systems.

Swan wrote:
FBI Director Christopher Wray recently compared the current cyber-threat landscape to the challenge posed by the 9/11 aftermath, and several officials have followed suit in their declarations.

Obviously a Windows user. What a moron.

Swan wrote:
During his confirmation hearing for the new position of National Cyber Director, Chris Inglis – arguably the most senior individual for combatting state and non-state cyber actors – said the US government must "seize back the initiative that has too long been ceded to criminals and rogue nations... and bring to bear consequences on those who hold us at risk."

https://darktrace.com/blog/the-elevation-of-cyber-crime-to-terrorism-threat-status#:~:text=The%20Department%20of%20Justice%20has,followed%20suit%20in%20their%20declarations.

Nope. There really isn't a risk. This is just a government agency fear mongering to justify it's own existence again.

Don't run Windows. That operating system effectively has a giant 'Kick Me' sign on it's back, and people...well...kick it.

Most government agencies have notoriously easy to hack systems. They still haven't figured out even the most basic security techniques, despite the NSA.

So the government cannot define terrorism, but you can. Very interesting, please feel free laying back on the couch and telling us why your mother did that to you.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So the government cannot define terrorism, but you can. Very interesting, please feel free laying back on the couch and telling us why your mother did that to you.

I can define terrorism, thank you for asking.

IBDaTerrorismDefinition: The generation of fear/panic/dread through violence for the purpose of advancing a political agenda.

A bomb/explosion does not, by itself, qualify as terrorism. Violence involving bombs/explosives is not necessarily terrorism, but can certainly be one of many other crimes. When a bank robber uses explosives to blast open a vault, that is not terrorism; it is theft. When Timothy McVeigh killed people with a truck bomb, it was not terrorism; it was simply murder.

Stealing money and other financial and/or cyber crimes do not qualify as terrorism. The government has demonstrated that it cannot effectively define terrorism.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So the government cannot define terrorism, but you can. Very interesting, please feel free laying back on the couch and telling us why your mother did that to you.

I can define terrorism, thank you for asking.

IBDaTerrorismDefinition: The generation of fear/panic/dread through violence for the purpose of advancing a political agenda.

A bomb/explosion does not, by itself, qualify as terrorism. Violence involving bombs/explosives is not necessarily terrorism, but can certainly be one of many other crimes. When a bank robber uses explosives to blast open a vault, that is not terrorism; it is theft. When Timothy McVeigh killed people with a truck bomb, it was not terrorism; it was simply murder.

Stealing money and other financial and/or cyber crimes do not qualify as terrorism. The government has demonstrated that it cannot effectively define terrorism.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:I can define terrorism, thank you for asking.

IBDaTerrorismDefinition: The generation of fear/panic/dread through violence for the purpose of advancing a political agenda.

A bomb/explosion does not, by itself, qualify as terrorism. Violence involving bombs/explosives is not necessarily terrorism, but can certainly be one of many other crimes. When a bank robber uses explosives to blast open a vault, that is not terrorism; it is theft. When Timothy McVeigh killed people with a truck bomb, it was not terrorism; it was simply murder.

Stealing money and other financial and/or cyber crimes do not qualify as terrorism. The government has demonstrated that it cannot effectively define terrorism.

The FBI says that you are wrong

From FBI.gov

Terrorism Definitions

International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So the government cannot define terrorism, but you can. Very interesting, please feel free laying back on the couch and telling us why your mother did that to you.

I can define terrorism, thank you for asking.

IBDaTerrorismDefinition: The generation of fear/panic/dread through violence for the purpose of advancing a political agenda.

A bomb/explosion does not, by itself, qualify as terrorism. Violence involving bombs/explosives is not necessarily terrorism, but can certainly be one of many other crimes. When a bank robber uses explosives to blast open a vault, that is not terrorism; it is theft. When Timothy McVeigh killed people with a truck bomb, it was not terrorism; it was simply murder.

Stealing money and other financial and/or cyber crimes do not qualify as terrorism. The government has demonstrated that it cannot effectively define terrorism.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

The FBI says that you are wrong and that ransomware is a form of terrorism. No one cares about your own definitions that you use to justify the meaningless internet babbles that give purpose to your otherwise empty, lonely life

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, which is why you want quantum code protecting your accounts.

How would quantum code protect any accounts?

Oh, that's right, you can just show the architectures. Well played!

Post those architectures. Throw them in his face.

Swan wrote:I never mentioned architectures kid, the first mention of that was yours in the above post

Depending on the architecture and qubit systems, some implementations need their qubits to be kept at temperatures close to absolute zero.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:I never mentioned architectures kid, the first mention of that was yours in the above post

Nope. You explained how the current qubit architectures get down in the weeds and specify required operating temperatures. Wow! You did so on 20 October at 20:35

Depending on the architecture and qubit systems, some implementations need their qubits to be kept at temperatures close to absolute zero.

Just post those architecures that you have that specify all this. It's not like you gullibly reposted a pure fabrication, is it?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:I never mentioned architectures kid, the first mention of that was yours in the above post

Nope. You explained how the current qubit architectures get down in the weeds and specify required operating temperatures. Wow! You did so on 20 October at 20:35

Depending on the architecture and qubit systems, some implementations need their qubits to be kept at temperatures close to absolute zero.

Just post those architecures that you have that specify all this. It's not like you gullibly reposted a pure fabrication, is it?

Swan wrote:LOL I did not say that, I reposted what another person said.

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:I never mentioned architectures kid, the first mention of that was yours in the above post

Nope. You explained how the current qubit architectures get down in the weeds and specify required operating temperatures. Wow! You did so on 20 October at 20:35

Depending on the architecture and qubit systems, some implementations need their qubits to be kept at temperatures close to absolute zero.

Just post those architecures that you have that specify all this. It's not like you gullibly reposted a pure fabrication, is it?

This is truly becoming some amusing crap to read through... A lot of techno-babble ab out yo qubits, and what could be done with them, how they are controlled and manipulated. But not a lot on how computations are actually performed. You need a traditional computer handling most everything. Seems to take at least 2 qubits, just to form a single logic gate. At best, quantum computers are a hybrid. Most everything is done with traditional hardware. Multiple-state bits might have some interesting possibilities, but do see the computational boost, if traditional computers are handling the bulk of the work. Those who wish to play, can only submit their program, and wait in line for the job to be submitted, results posted, or e-mail. Not sure about how long people wait. Don't think quantum computing is an advantage for most computer needs. Really don't see quantum video games anytime soon...

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:I never mentioned architectures kid, the first mention of that was yours in the above post

Nope. You explained how the current qubit architectures get down in the weeds and specify required operating temperatures. Wow! You did so on 20 October at 20:35

Depending on the architecture and qubit systems, some implementations need their qubits to be kept at temperatures close to absolute zero.

Just post those architecures that you have that specify all this. It's not like you gullibly reposted a pure fabrication, is it?

LOL I did not say that, I reposted what another person said. Really you seem to not understand that you are attributing everything that I post as mine when in reality you are denying reality as explained by multiple persons and groups. Not that you can ever really know.

But it is nice owning a government clown's little IQ brain.

You may now continue babbling

Shit if I said "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." You would babble that this is not true.

Again nothing in front of you is yours, because you are nothing and no one.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL I did not say that, I reposted what another person said.

... and in so doing, you made it your own.

So are you now admitting that you really have been mindlessly regurgitating what you have been told to believe? Are you now admitting that you have no rational basis for believing any of the absurd things you have been spouting about "entanglement" and "quantum computing"?

Why did you allow yourself to be so gullible when all you had to do was demand the architectures and immediately realize you were being taken for a ride?