Thanks for your thoughts.
I have read the article that you linked and it only proves to me that they try to fool us. The Shor's algorithms that they have run relied on knowing the outcome in advance. That doesn't prove much about quantum computing at all, does it? The new algorithm that they mention looks better, and I would have to read up on it before I can comment on it.
I know there is a lot of "quantum evidence", but it can not convince me. If a theory comes with unsolvable paradoxes, then for me that is proof that this theory is wrong. Period. They need to retrace their steps and find where they diverged from reality. And I believe there are a few such moments in historical science.
The fact that a theory predicts correct results does not mean that the theory itself is correct. An example of that you will find in Bohr's model of the atom, with electrons flying around a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons. It is a beautiful model and it explains a lot, but it is not a correct model. And everyone in the science community is aware of that.
The same goes for QM. It is probably the best that we have, but it can not possibly be correct.
On SHA256: I know what those parameters are for, but I find it more than likely that they are chosen in such a way that they provide a back door. As the algorithm is quite complex (in tossing around the bits) I can understand that finding this back door for an outsider will be extremely difficult.