vicentesteve

Hello everyone, I wrote this preprint article in an attempt to create a protocol that secures communications between classical clients and quantum servers in the cloud.

I am posting here on Hacker News not to advertise the article, but to get feedback from the community on the idea and the formal development I have done.

Please refrain from commenting if you have not read the article and if you only want to make destructive opinions. All constructive reviews or opinions will be considered. If you have questions about concepts or things that are not well defined, you can comment and I will try to answer them and improve the writing of the article.

I am letting you know now that the writing and formality are probably not perfect, you can tell me what I need to improve if you want.

Hola a tothom, he escrit aquest article preprint per intentar crear un protocol que asseguri les comunicacions entre clients clàssics i servidors quàntics al núvol.

Publico aquí a Hacker News no per fer publicitat de l'article, sinó per obtenir ressenyes de la comunitat sobre la idea i el desenvolupament formal que he fet.

Si us plau, absteniu-vos de comentar si no heu llegit l'article i si només voleu fer opinions destructives. Totes les ressenyes o opinions constructives seran considerades. Si teniu preguntes sobre conceptes o coses que no estan ben definides, podeu comentar-les i intentaré respondre-les i millorar la redacció de l'article.

Us faig saber ara que probablement la redacció i la formalitat no són perfectes, podeu dir-me què he de millorar si voleu.

Thanks for this — I really appreciate how clearly you explained the issue.

You're absolutely right that, by definition, a verifier for an NP language must return false for all certificates if the instance is not in the language. That’s a fundamental property, and I fully agree with it.

What I intended in my construction is that the verifier accepts only if the parity check specified by the certificate actually fails — it recomputes the encoded value *_n(), verifies the parity check at index , and accepts only if there's a real mismatch. If the circuit is correct, then no matter what or you give, that mismatch shouldn't appear, so the verifier should always reject.

That said, I totally see how the way it's currently written might be unclear or misleading. It’s very possible that I need to make this logic more explicit, or even re-express the verifier definition to better align with the formal NP structure. I’ll take a closer look and make sure that the construction is not only correct, but clearly communicates the intended behavior.

Thanks again for pointing this out in such a precise way — it's exactly the kind of critique that helps me make this better.

Thanks for pointing that out. I’m not sure what happened with the DOI — I’m already in contact with ResearchGate to get that fixed. But the PDF is still available and can be viewed or downloaded directly from the ResearchGate page, just below the summary.

As for arXiv: I haven't submitted it yet because I need an endorsement and I'm not advanced enough to get one. Because I'm new and haven't written much, I haven't been able to get one yet. I hope I will down the road — I'd really like to submit it there when it's done.

Thank you very much for spending the time reading it — I really appreciate such a thoughtful and thorough comment.

You're right on a couple of things. For instance, I probably overstated the time for parsing in a way that makes it sound like it's part of the actual hardness, when really it was just something I wanted to make explicit to be precise. And the point about randomness in the LTC part is valid — the verifier itself is fully deterministic and uses a fixed check index r, but the LTC construction it relies on is based on randomness. I see now that this wasn’t clearly separated in how I wrote it.

About the certificate: I get why it might look redundant at first. The key idea is that the verifier doesn’t go looking for a parity check that fails — it just verifies the one that’s provided. So r isn’t there because the verifier couldn’t find a violation, but because it doesn’t try to; it just checks whether the one it's told about actually fails. That said, I completely agree it could be better explained.

The diagonalization part definitely needs more clarity too. You're right: just looping over inputs only works if you can guarantee that failure will eventually happen — and that’s supposed to come from the circuit-counting bound. I’ll go back and make that implication and its formal reasoning much more explicit.

As for the machines halting — that’s handled by padding every D_i so it always halts within a fixed polynomial time (as mentioned in Lemma 4.1), but again, I agree that’s not emphasized enough and should be stated more clearly.

Overall, your feedback is incredibly helpful — not just in pointing out specific issues, but also in showing me how things might come across to someone reading this fresh. I'm already working on revising the affected sections, and I’d honestly be glad to hear any further thoughts you (or others) might have. Thanks again!

Appreciate the comment, I understand what you're trying to say.

Just to clear something up where I'm at: I'm a student, not a professional researcher (yet, anyway), and I'm trying to get into this realm step by step. I don't actually have much of a network or people around me to help share my work, so publishing it myself is kind of the only way I can get feedback from others who are into this sort of thing.

Also, I realize grades and university matter, but I think that trying to do it — even if it's not perfect — has to count for something as well. Publishing this is a way of learning, improving, and maybe getting closer to being part of a real research team someday.

You're correct as far as the abstract on ResearchGate is concerned — I didn't realize it got scrambled when I copied it over from the LaTeX version. Thank you for pointing it out to me, I'll fix it.

And sure, I know it sounds weird that I'm the only author. I understand why you'd question it. But I'm not claiming this is the evidence of anything — I'm just presenting a thing I've been messing around with and hoping that people can help say where there might be something to it, or where it doesn't work. That's the entire premise.

And AI — and this was not accomplished by AI. It's just me. Sure, I did use LaTeX and a PDF editor, but the writing and the thinking are mine.

Thanks again for reading. If you have any ideas on the actual content, I'd really love to hear them.

Hi everyone,

I’m an independent researcher and recently completed a formal, self-contained proof that P ≠ NP. The result is based on an explicit language L* ∈ NP \ P that resists all polynomial-time machines via a certified local test. The core techniques combine locally testable codes, circuit resistance, and diagonalisation.

Unlike many previous attempts, the proof avoids relativization, natural proofs, and algebrization, and relies entirely on constructive combinatorics and meta-complexity arguments. It has been submitted to the Journal of the ACM and also made publicly available here:

ResearchGate (PDF, with DOI): https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14071.74408

I’m sharing this for discussion and feedback from the theoretical CS and cryptography communities. Constructive criticism is welcome — I’d genuinely like to know if any gaps remain. The paper is intended to be rigorous and elementary in its construction.

Thanks in advance, Vicent Esteve Voltes https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1371-7561

Quantum computing offers immense power, but remains out of reach for most users. This preprint introduces a universal protocol that enables purely classical clients to securely delegate quantum computations to remote servers, while ensuring both blindness (privacy) and verifiability (correctness).

The protocol integrates:

    Post-quantum cryptography (trapdoor claw-free functions, LWE)

    Zero-knowledge SNARKs

    A novel thermodynamic verification mechanism using entropy flow as a physical signature of computation

The goal: democratize access to quantum computing without compromising trust or requiring quantum capabilities.

Would love feedback from the community.

Paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391055609_Universal... Author: Vicent Esteve Voltes

Quantum computing offers immense power, but remains out of reach for most users. This preprint introduces a universal protocol that enables purely classical clients to securely delegate quantum computations to remote servers, while ensuring both blindness (privacy) and verifiability (correctness).

The protocol integrates:

    Post-quantum cryptography (trapdoor claw-free functions, LWE)

    Zero-knowledge SNARKs

    A novel thermodynamic verification mechanism using entropy flow as a physical signature of computation

The goal: democratize access to quantum computing without compromising trust or requiring quantum capabilities.

Would love feedback from the community.

Paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391055609_Universal... Author: Vicent Esteve Voltes

Hi everyone,

I’m an independent researcher and recently completed a formal, self-contained proof that P ≠ NP. The result is based on an explicit language L* ∈ NP \ P that resists all polynomial-time machines via a certified local test. The core techniques combine locally testable codes, circuit resistance, and diagonalisation.

Unlike many previous attempts, the proof avoids relativization, natural proofs, and algebrization, and relies entirely on constructive combinatorics and meta-complexity arguments. It has been submitted to the Journal of the ACM and also made publicly available here:

ResearchGate (PDF, with DOI): https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14071.74408

I’m sharing this for discussion and feedback from the theoretical CS and cryptography communities. Constructive criticism is welcome — I’d genuinely like to know if any gaps remain. The paper is intended to be rigorous and elementary in its construction.

Thanks in advance, Vicent Esteve Voltes https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1371-7561

Hi everyone,

I’m an independent researcher and recently completed a formal, self-contained proof that P ≠ NP. The result is based on an explicit language L* ∈ NP \ P that resists all polynomial-time machines via a certified local test. The core techniques combine locally testable codes, circuit resistance, and diagonalisation.

Unlike many previous attempts, the proof avoids relativization, natural proofs, and algebrization, and relies entirely on constructive combinatorics and meta-complexity arguments. It has been submitted to the Journal of the ACM and also made publicly available here:

ResearchGate (PDF, with DOI): https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14071.74408

I’m sharing this for discussion and feedback from the theoretical CS and cryptography communities. Constructive criticism is welcome — I’d genuinely like to know if any gaps remain. The paper is intended to be rigorous and elementary in its construction.

Thanks in advance, Vicent Esteve Voltes https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1371-7561

Quantum computing offers immense power, but remains out of reach for most users. This preprint introduces a universal protocol that enables purely classical clients to securely delegate quantum computations to remote servers, while ensuring both blindness (privacy) and verifiability (correctness).

The protocol integrates:

    Post-quantum cryptography (trapdoor claw-free functions, LWE)

    Zero-knowledge SNARKs

    A novel thermodynamic verification mechanism using entropy flow as a physical signature of computation

The goal: democratize access to quantum computing without compromising trust or requiring quantum capabilities.

Would love feedback from the community.

Paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15265412 Author: Vicent Esteve Voltes

Quantum computing offers immense power, but remains out of reach for most users. This preprint introduces a universal protocol that enables purely classical clients to securely delegate quantum computations to remote servers, while ensuring both blindness (privacy) and verifiability (correctness).

The protocol integrates:

    Post-quantum cryptography (trapdoor claw-free functions, LWE)

    Zero-knowledge SNARKs

    A novel thermodynamic verification mechanism using entropy flow as a physical signature of computation

The goal: democratize access to quantum computing without compromising trust or requiring quantum capabilities.

Would love feedback from the community.

Paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15265412 Author: Vicent Esteve Voltes