Isn't the entire security of Quantum Communication predicated on its complete lack of side-channels due to the fact that measuring quantum systems collapses their wave function?
Once you put error correction, doenn't you lose all the nice properties of the non cloning theorem? If the protocol tolerates 30% of errors, doesn't it tolerate 30% of MITM? (60%??)
You don't need error correction for some crypto primitives. There are QKD networks deployed that don't have that kind of error correction, as far as I know.
How can QKD repeaters store and forward or just forward without collapsing phase state?
How does photonic phase state collapse due to fiber mitm compare to a heartbeat on a classical fiber?
There is quantum counterfactual communication without entanglement FWIU? And there's a difference between QND "Quantum Non-Demolition" and "Interaction-free measurement"
>> IIRC I read on Wikipedia one day that Bell's actually says there's like a 60% error rate?(!)
> That was probably the "Bell test" article, which - IIUC - does indeed indicate that if you can read 62% of the photons you are likely to find a loophole-free violation
> [ "Violation of Bell inequality by photon scattering on a two-level emitter", ]
> when using a maximally entangled state and the CHSH inequality an efficiency of
η>2sqrt(2)−2≈0.83 is required for a loophole-free violation.[51] Later Philippe H. Eberhard showed that when using a partially entangled state a loophole-free violation is possible for
η>2/3≈0.67,[52] which is the optimal bound for the CHSH inequality. [53] Other Bell inequalities allow for even lower bounds. For example, there exists a four-setting inequality which is violated for
η>(5−1)/2≈0.62 [54]
Isn't modern error detection and classical PQ sufficient to work with those odds?
> Historically, only experiments with non-optical systems have been able to reach high enough efficiencies to close this loophole, such as trapped ions, [55] superconducting qubits, [56] and nitrogen-vacancy centers. [57] These experiments were not able to close the locality loophole, which is easy to do with photons. More recently, however, optical setups have managed to reach sufficiently high detection efficiencies by using superconducting photodetectors, [30][31] and hybrid setups have managed to combine the high detection efficiency typical of matter systems with the ease of distributing entanglement at a distance typical of photonic systems. [10]
