Talk:Quantum cryptography

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BriannaKenney, Moonunit42. Peer reviewers: THoeller1099, Dbaror.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 23 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skyhawk g650, Jhernandez127, Broccccoli. Peer reviewers: Aannulis, Bml6789.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Position-based quantum cryptography
Hallo there,
 * I guess there is some confusion arising in using (or not using) the following terms:
 * multilateration,
 * trilateration and
 * triangulation.
 * "Position based quantum stuff" shouldn't take under account space-time?
 * Just like Global navigation satellite systems?
 * Or it's just me about to enter into some paradoxical conclusions?
 * Duh?!
 * Whatever... thanks for the attention anyway.
 * Have a nice day.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess from the terms you mention, multilateration is closest (because quantum position verification uses the timing, not the angle (thus not triangulation)), and usually has four or more verifiers (thus not trilateration). But it is not really multilateration either, because it locates via the response times, while multilateration uses the differences in arrival times of the signal (i.e., communication is unidirectional).


 * I am not sure what you mean by "taking into account space-time". Do you mean that the curvature of space-time needs to be taken into account? That would only necessary for long distance position verification, I believe (otherwise the errors are very small and can be ignored). (But curved spacetime can be handled, see http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/118/20140216:194504. Disclaimer: own research.)


 * Dominique Unruh (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

State of the technique today?
It doesn't say what the state of the technique is today; at least not in the introduction part, and the rest of the article is just about specific parts of the technology. Shouldn't there be anything about that in the article? Is it just on the research level or is it actually being used? --Kri (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does read as if the techniques are up and running everywhere, whereas much of this is still theoretical. For QKD I have added a citation needed tag to say where this can be found. Myrvin (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's because it doesn't work in the real world. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * perhaps we should just change verb tenses to remove these citation needed tags, since it seems the state of current research is not at the point indicated? see my recent edit for an example. changed "is used" to "could be used". Cliff (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Question....
Should be explained that if Bob and Alice live at oposite parts of the earth they will need a direct optical fiber connection to actualy use QC? Security affects just the optical cable transmission.--85.52.11.16 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For QKD, many experiments involve photon travelling through air, if I'm not mistaken. Skippydo (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What I think the previous user means, is that in order to preserve the quantumstate of the messages, there needs to be a direct line between Alice and Bob. If there were like a router in between, wouldn't it change the quantum stae, because it needs to repeat the message? ie. it needs to resend it to another part of the network, therefore it has to create a new message, thus losing the quantum state. This is the reason why I came here aswell, because this has been bugging me too. If someone has an answer for this? 217.150.190.17 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The entire example is nonsense, and poorly written nonsense at that. However, the fact is there COULD be an interception without the receiver knowing it, because a repeater could easily be constructed.  Sure the original "message" (quantum states) would be destroyed, but not before it was captured, copied and then re-transmitted from a second (2nd) quantum transmitter.  When someone builds a working end to end quantum data link, I'll build one that can unobtrusively capture the data that traverses it.  98.194.39.86 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The article's content is baloney
There is no such thing as quantum crypto. Quantum computing can be used to establish a connection between points, which is what the reference to key distribution is referring to. Quantum Physics, its laws (if you want to call them this) give its users an ability to be certain that a connection between two points is just that -- and that nobody has eavesdropped on that connection.

This article ought to be removed unless robust citations are added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.236.19 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. Most of this article is pure science fiction, speculation and / or unproven theory.  To treat it as fact is absurd.  Lacking proof and citations, it should be removed or rewritten as theoretical.  98.194.39.86 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've read here that China has already put quantum cryptography to use. 03:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.206.227.217 (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Quantum cryptography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150205054629/http://www.quintessencelabs.com/ to http://www.quintessencelabs.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review for Brianna Kenney and Moonunit42
I justed finished reading your article and it seemed like both of you made strong contributions to the article. The lead paragraph is concise, which is good but may want to include a sentence or two about some of the subcategories mentioned in the article. The last paragraph added to quantum key distribution added additional context and applications for the article, another strong edit. The sources look reliable for the additions to the quantum commitment section as well. Nothing was overstated or redundant. I enjoyed reading the article and learning about quantum cryptography! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbaror (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The misleading "Implementation_in_practice" should be renamed
The section Implementation in practice is the only section (supposedly) about implementations, yet it doesn't talk about any of them. It should be renamed to make way for a much-needed section "Implementations", and, perhaps, included in a subsection of that. Jim Bowery (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)