Adversaries can now, at the present time, try to discover al...

inkan

npub16xnpfx85k8wzdhctang6860g3u64lds5kac73ddjwlg0lxdg9g3su56z6l

hex

7b494a3785a74609d332480c809cfb3e37cece3760ce9fd357006c17b5cf3014

nevent

nevent1qqs8kj22x7z6w3sf6veysryqnnanud7wecmkpn5l6dtsqmqhkh8nq9qprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsdrfs5nr6trhpxmu97e5dra85g7d2lkc2twu0gkke8058lnx5z5gc50psx8

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-04-11T11:44:28Z

↳ Reply to Event not found

d75fdb2116dddb5599f0f925b4ab81d79ce827f02454260dfd153137b5c8aa6c...

Adversaries can now, at the present time, try to discover algorithms that break "quantum resistant" encryption. They may have already discovered such algorithms. If so, they are unlikely to advertise that fact.

But that's the same with classical cryptographic algorithms. Adversaries may have found ways to break classical encryption and may have already done so, without telling us.

I guess the difference you are pointing to is that classical algorithms are being widely used, and there is perhaps no strong evidence that the encryption on materials that have been classically encrypted has been broken on a large scale (at least not due to a fault in the algorithm itself as opposed to its implementation).

This could be because classical encryption has not been broken, or because those who broke it have taken care to not take any actions that would reveal that fact. There would certainly be plenty of incentives to not reveal it.

So I guess we sort of have reason to believe that classical encryption has successfully withstood battle-testing. Except that if it did not, there is a fairly good chance that we would not be told about it.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "7b494a3785a74609d332480c809cfb3e37cece3760ce9fd357006c17b5cf3014",
  "pubkey": "d1a61498f4b1dc26df0becd1a3e9e88f355fb614b771e8b5b277d0ff99a82a23",
  "created_at": 1775907868,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "5cef312ecce58e2f1a5762dd7b00b3798a6062e03c6c674d0f52245d2f5c7c6b",
      "wss://relay.mostr.pub/",
      "root",
      "c21b1a6cdb247ccbd938dcb16b15a4fa382d00ffd7b12d5cbbad172a0cd4d170"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "d75fdb2116dddb5599f0f925b4ab81d79ce827f02454260dfd153137b5c8aa6c",
      "wss://offchain.pub/",
      "reply",
      "c21b1a6cdb247ccbd938dcb16b15a4fa382d00ffd7b12d5cbbad172a0cd4d170"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "c21b1a6cdb247ccbd938dcb16b15a4fa382d00ffd7b12d5cbbad172a0cd4d170"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "Adversaries can now, at the present time, try to discover algorithms that break \"quantum resistant\" encryption. They may have already discovered such algorithms. If so, they are unlikely to advertise that fact.\n\nBut that's the same with classical cryptographic algorithms. Adversaries may have found ways to break classical encryption and may have already done so, without telling us.\n\nI guess the difference you are pointing to is that classical algorithms are being widely used, and there is perhaps no strong evidence that the encryption on materials that have been classically encrypted has been broken on a large scale (at least not due to a fault in the algorithm itself as opposed to its implementation).\n\nThis could be because classical encryption has not been broken, or because those who broke it have taken care to not take any actions that would reveal that fact. There would certainly be plenty of incentives to not reveal it.\n\nSo I guess we sort of have reason to believe that classical encryption has successfully withstood battle-testing. Except that if it did not, there is a fairly good chance that we would not be told about it.",
  "sig": "3ac1d5b6e0ca026a3c6a12893c11b59493b9b7494760d4ddcfe3f8ac9f3ac61efd0764facbacbbbc74fc74f3d07d1f0d8e93ea66dbc5a6b40024431baa70738b"
}