@max@mastodon.xolus.net @fj@mastodon.social Physics, we should add, that we know not to be a complete and accurate description of the universe we live in. (There is no accepted theory of Quantum Gravity.) Is this likely to be a problem? Probably not. But that probably puts it very much into the same bucket as most widely assumed computational hardness assumptions for post-quantum settings: Likely fine, but we don’t know for certain. There is one difference though: We have a good idea for why knowing for certain that the hardness assumptions are hard is so hard (possibly even impossible) to prove: You (kinda) have to prove P≠NP for such a proof (technically: BQP≠MA) which itself explains why mathematically proving literally anything can be hard. Does this mean that QKD-assumptions are more likely to turn out false? Maybe, I don’t know, but I haven’t heard a good argument from QKD-people that they are not. The issue I take here is that this is swept under the rug instead of being clearly communicated.