Again? Please stop hyping this.

Neither paper has been peer-reviewed.

The article should stop there.

Regardless, the cited speculative qubit requirements are still hilariously beyond construction possibility in the foreseeable future.

https://arstechnica.com/security/2026/03/new-quantum-computing-advances-heighten-threat-to-elliptic-curve-cryptosystems

Quantum computers need vastly fewer resources than thought to break vital encryption

No, the sky isn't falling, but Q Day is coming, and it won't be as expensive as thought.

Ars Technica

@mttaggart

Oh, but where's the money in that?

@mttaggart Additionally, factorisation is not exponential, but subexponential.
@sten Could I trouble you to explain that like I'm an English major?
@mttaggart The article claims that factorisation takes exponential time, I.e., is proportional to e^(an) where a is a constant and n is the number of bits in the number to be factored. But that's not true: the best factoring algorithm known to date, the General Number Field Sieve, takes subexponential time. This class of functions grows faster than any polynomial, but slower than any exponential. One example of a subexponenrial function is e^(√n).
@sten Ah, okay! Thank you! I really appreciate you taking the time to break that down.
@mttaggart No problem at all! Glad to be of service.