16:30:08	 From Christian Schaffner to All panelists : Speakers, can you please upload your slides to the surf drive where you also uploaded the talks?
16:30:20	 From Christian Schaffner to All panelists : In case you are OK with sharing
16:30:37	 From Christian Schaffner to All panelists : Probably the slides from the long talk are more useful

16:30:53	 From Christian Schaffner to All panelists : I’ll start the live stream now
16:31:01	 From Carl Miller to All panelists : Ok.  I’ll start momentarily

16:52:04	 From Mischa : Does this have anything to do with the lightning network? 
16:53:53	 From Andrea Coladangelo : The names are an interesting coincidence. Quantum lightning has nothing to do with the bitcoin lightning network.

16:54:39	 From Christian Schaffner : I have a question for Andrea: what are the requirements for an actual implementation of quantum lightning? For instance, do you have to perform “coherent” preparation of multiple quits?
16:55:49	 From Andrea Coladangelo : For the only concrete construction we know of at the moment, yes you would need highly entangled states.

16:56:50	 From Vu Quoc Huy to All panelists : Hi Andrea, which concrete construction are you mentioning?
16:59:19	 From Andrea Coladangelo : There one here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.02276.pdf

16:59:48	 From Or Sattath to All panelists : @Chris: All quantum money states must use entangled states. This is an implication of the result “Quantum state restoration and single-copy tomography for ground states of hamiltonians” by Farhi et al.
16:59:59	 From Or Sattath : @Chris: All quantum money states must use entangled states. This is an implication of the result “Quantum state restoration and single-copy tomography for ground states of hamiltonians” by Farhi et al.
17:00:15	 From Or Sattath : Whoops, all *public* quantum money states...
17:00:16	 From Andrea Coladangelo : Sorry, that version might be outdated, here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1080.pdf
17:01:06	 From Vu Quoc Huy : Thanks!

17:06:01	 From Andrea Coladangelo : @Gorjan: Can you say more about the following: in the classical case we can show obfuscation implies OWF, so the impossibility is unconditional. Do you think we have hope for an unconditional separation quantumly?
17:07:04	 From Zvika B to All panelists : We tried hard…
17:08:58	 From Zvika B : Adding to Gorjan’s answer: It seems like you need at least a post-quantum OWF for the negative result, but if the obfuscation itself is a quantum state then it is not clear that it implies any kind of *classical* OWF. So the situation here seems much different than the classical case.
17:09:44	 From Gorjan Alagic : Right! It's not even clear if one can get such a OWF from quantum encryption...

17:11:44	 From roelof to All panelists : great, thanks for the first day!