How To Use A Quantum Computer For Bitcoin Mining? BTC Wires

Bitcoin Mining with Quantum Computers

Would quantum computers be able to mine bitcoin more efficiently than classical computers? D wave apparently is selling a 2000 qubit machine.
submitted by MetalStorm01 to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining with Quantum Computers /r/BitcoinMining

Bitcoin Mining with Quantum Computers /BitcoinMining submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Couldnt IBM, Microsoft or another company with one of those supercomputers (and even the one company with the quantum computer) be mining A LOT of coin? /r/Bitcoin

Couldnt IBM, Microsoft or another company with one of those supercomputers (and even the one company with the quantum computer) be mining A LOT of coin? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

[WP] Our funding is cut again? I'm sick of this. I'd rather do useful research, but I'm going to figure out how to mine bitcoin with our quantum computer.

submitted by ceelogreenispeople to WritingPrompts [link] [comments]

block 499896 to block 499982 was mined by 1 guy with a quantum computer or a super powerful asic that is not on the market. /r/Bitcoin

block 499896 to block 499982 was mined by 1 guy with a quantum computer or a super powerful asic that is not on the market. /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

The list of best coins (in my humble opinion)

*This is not financial advice or suggestion. Just my opinion*
Legend:
"S" - super
"A" - really good
"B" - good
"C" - has potential
"D" - keeping an eye on it
"E" - coins to gamble on

Digibyte [DGB]: "S"
I mentioned this coin a few times already. It's because DGB is a true successor of Satoshi's philosophy. It's the purest coin in the market. DGB is the "people's money".

Dash [DASH]: "S"
DAO and masternodes are the future. Satoshi had a vision of altruism. But we cannot expect people to be altruists and lend their infrastructure for the wellbeing of others. The community is just not strong enough to do so. Masternodes are a meritatory focused system to reward those who are willing to lend their infrastructure to be a node in the network. It's a win-win situation for the network and the node owner. Besides acting as a node, it allowed the development of some other features like optional privacy and instant payments.

Monero [XMR]: "S"
When we think about cash, one of its best features that come to mind is privacy. Monero is probably the most famous privacy coin. Transactions are private by default. Another great thing that Monero is taking care of is the prevention of mining centralization. Being able to mine a coin with a CPU is probably one of the main concepts we forgot when it comes to allowing every person to participate in the network.

Vechain [VET]: "A"
If you think about the use-cases of blockchain, you cannot forget how impactful it will be for supply chains. So far, Vechain is one of the best solutions. It's also the most adopted for now.

Nexus [NXS]: "A"
NXS is a coin that deserves to be in the "S" category. But there's still a long way to go for it to achieve that rank. It's a forward-thinking project. They understood how far decentralization has to go to achieve the real meaning of the word. They even though of the quantum computer problem. Fast database, satellites, quantum-resistant, decentralized internet, and user-friendliness are just a few keywords they focus on while developing the coin.

Bitcoin [BTC]: "A"
I'm somehow ashamed to put Bitcoin this low. But let me explain why I did so, while still keeping it in my top list. First of all, I have to say: "Thank you Satoshi!". Bitcoin got this low on my list because I have a feeling too many powerful people got their hands on it. Some got in for the right reasons, while others are not so benevolent. Bitcoin is not "people money" anymore. IMO (very very humble opinion), Bitcoin was a demo project. A very successful demo project. Satoshi gave us an open-source code as a gift to do with it whatever we want. Blockchain is the gift he gave us, not Bitcoin. And we (the community) did it. Bitcoin became a brand. More people heard of the word "Bitcoin" then "cryptocurrency". On the bright side, Bitcoin is the biggest network in the world. While this is true, hodling some is a good idea.

Litecoin [LTC]: "B"
At its time, not many understood what Bitcoin is, and what potential blockchains as technology have. Imagine how forward-thinking was Mr. Charlie Lee. He created the first altcoin. Technology-wise, LTC is a different coin. Mr. Lee didn't just copy-paste the code and name it differently. In my eyes, LTC will always be the "crypto silver" making it a good store of value and medium of exchange.

Chainlink [LINK]: "B"
I believe the solution they are going to provide is too important for the crypto space to ignore it. Oracles are the future, but until we don't see real use-case, it will remain listed as "B". Another reason that doesn't give him the right to be higher in the list is that it's an Eth token.

Dogecoin [DOGE]: "C"
When you think about content creation, you'll see it's highly centralized. Creators depend on the platform's policies and bread crumbs those platforms leave them even after people click on ads. One of the solutions to reward good creators is to make a fast and easy to use tipping system. The first thing that crosses your mind are probably tokens. But imagine a blockchain of its own that enables fast and cheap transactions. Yes, DGB is the way to go. But there is a coin with higher inflation which you don't want to hold for a long time, but spent around to reward other's work that helped you in some way or you enjoy reading or watching. Dogecoin has the potential of becoming the chosen one for this exact purpose.

Verge [XVG]: "C"
When Wikileaks added BTC as a donation medium, Satoshi politely asked to remove it because we were poking the hornet's nest. I don't remember he's exact words, but this was the context. A similar thing happened to Verge. It was like the flight of Icarus. Pornhub listed it as an optional payment method drawing a lot of attention to it. Verge was not mature enough for that kind of exposure. After that, it suffered an attack, and people gave up on it. But if you look closely at the technology behind it, you'll see it's a really good coin. It offers privacy differently then Monero does. If you already haven't, I strongly encourage you to read about Verge's tech. You'll be amazed.

"D" coins:
Polkadot [DOT]
Ethereum [ETH]
Electroneum [ETN]
Cardano [ADA]
Siacoin [SC]

"E" coins:
Theta [THETA]
Zilliqa [ZIL]
Decred [DCR]
Golem [GNT]
Enjin [ENJ]
Zcoin [XZC]
Energi [NRG]

Thank you Satoshi!
submitted by BlueBloodStrawberry to SatoshisPhilosophy [link] [comments]

I'm trying to be positive but GL's actions are the opposite of intelligence. This is the worst update in A9 history. I'll explain why...

I'm trying to be positive but GL's actions are the opposite of intelligence. This is the worst update in A9 history. I'll explain why...
It's a pretty long rant. You have been warned...
  • Worsened graphics. Same device, much worse graphics for no reason. They literally made the game engine worse.
  • Frame skipping and lagging everywhere. Also game crashes. They said they optimized the game. I bet they forgot to mention that you need a quantum computer to play their casino racing masterpiece.
  • The older bug with the mini map (tap do steer players can't tap in that area) is back.
  • The infamous lagging screen after every freaking race (what the hell are they doing in background that the phones become so hot? bitcoin mining?). They still didn't fix it after the recent hotfix! Who pays these clowns who can't even revert some dumb changes?
  • The unfair SE. There are hardly tokens offered. They keep reducing the rewards until there will be nothing left except uncommon parts and a few credits. They expect us to play hundreds of races for peanuts. The finest greediness. Also how come SE still shares the same tickets pool with daily events? They are different things!
  • Same old stinky GP. Everyone knows what is wrong with this thing that has nothing in common with real grand prixes except the name. Most regular players don't win keys. Why should we even bother anymore?
  • The hard Unleashed event. They put the same required time 0:51 despite the cars having different rankings. They don't have the expression "fair play" in their dictionary.
  • Credits heist is good in theory. In practice they added the awful police besides the aggressive AI to make sure you can't get those credits. They also added stars requirements for good measure. Also they made it that way you need to play too many races if you want all rewards. Efficiency is again not in their dictionary.
  • The new MP format which encourages dumb grinding to get some decent milestones.
  • The club rewards remain a joke.
  • You need to complete 250 conditions in SE just to have the chance to buy packs! Whatever GL idiot who thought of that should have his head smashed on his monitor.
  • They still didn't fix that stupid error with no internet connection! My internet is working, it's not my fault you can't code a decent internet connection algorithm.
  • The cheaters are still dominating MP. The Android version has such a poor security that every schmuck can abuse the game. I wonder if anyone even reads those in game reports or are there as placebo effect.
  • Did you check how much internet traffic this game consumes? What the fxx-k they transfer that A9 needs gigabytes of data every month just to play it?
  • Should I mention the bunch of useless employees called Customer Care? An appendix is more useful than them.
  • etc
But we have emoticons! And new cars while most of us didn't even max out or unlock many of the previous premium cars. Give me a reason why should I keep playing...

I hope your wallet is as big as their greediness..
submitted by SpaceGenesis to Asphalt9 [link] [comments]

Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given public key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Quantum computing = bitcoin death?

Don’t take anything i say here as fact, i am in no way qualified to talk about quantum computing or bitcoin at all. i’m just trying to ask a question and learn more. thank you.
Someone with a physics and cybersecurity background please inform me
I’m going to try my best with my limited knowledge to ask this question but the idea of quantum computing is using the superposition of an electron in place of a “bit” correct? meaning one “bit” can store potentially endless data correct? so couldn’t a single quantum computer completely overtake all of the miners and power being put into mining today? It would at least have a significant advantage over everyone else to the point where a single person could hold ungodly amounts of bitcoin. Quantum computing would pretty much mean the death of encryption and therefor bitcoin and blockchain technologies wouldn’t it?
submitted by Shr1mpoholic to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

Private key mining problem

It's not a secret anymore that people are trying to mine private keys.
Even if chances are astronomically low to find the right key, there is a chance. With a graphic card mining rig, a miner, with an investment of a few hundred $, can produce more than 300MH/s. Now imagine if someone is dedicating even more resources to find a private key.
As I said, chances are low to achieve that. That's the beauty of mathematics. But there is a chance, and right now, people are trying to do so.
There should be a way to prevent such behavior.
I was thinking of a solution to this problem:
A wallet should have a "wallet token/coin". When a user wants to make a transaction, let's say with Bitcoin, at first, it would need to make a transaction using the "wallet token". The "wallet token" has a private key of its own. The private key is a hash generated using a username, password, pin, and timestamp. The transaction would be automatically directed to the connected node if it's not specified differently. This transaction would produce a tx id. Just as now, when the user wants to make the Bitcoin transaction, the user would need to insert his private key. In this case, besides the private key, the wallet would ask for the tx id done with the "wallet token". Those two hashes would produce a unique, more extended, and one-time use, private key. This last private key would enable the wanted transaction.
The private key miner would need to make countless transactions before even being able to find out if he got the right private key. Economically, it would not be profitable, unlike now, when he can effortlessly guess and try if the private key "fits" until it succeds.
The "wallet token" would be created with some of these mechanisms:
  1. Proof of work - mining like BTC
  2. Proof of ownership - every wallet would produce small amounts of tokens over time.
  3. Proof of transaction - Every transaction you do, you generate a new token for future transactions.
This is not a light and user-friendly solution. Its sole purpose is enhanced security.
PS
I'm not a techy guy. I don't know if this would require a completely new blockchain or it could be implemented in already existing wallets, coins, and protocols.
Even if enormous numbers are reliable enough to keep our cryptocurrencies safe, faster and more efficient computers are being built every day. At this rate of progress, it not hard to imagine a super ASIC that could be able to mine a private key if left a few years to do its job. Not to mention the threat that quantum computers represent.
I hope this will open a discussion in the crypto community to find the best solution to this problem. Or at least someone could explain why this is not an option or is a bad idea.
Thank you Satoshi!
submitted by BlueBloodStrawberry to SatoshisPhilosophy [link] [comments]

Subconsciously solving puzzles

Loved portal games and heard about this games puzzles and when I seen it on playstation store on sale I had to get it. I've notice something very interesting. When I'm stumped by a puzzle and cant for life of me figure it out I take a break from the game and spend some time not playing my console. Then after a few hours on of not even thinking about the puzzle I always manage to solve it within minutes as if I already knew the solution but I never gave it a single thought, this has led me to conclude that our brains subconsciously go over the puzzle and work out the solution without us even realising it at all. Like a super computer bitcoin mining in the background of our organic processes. Minimised and out of conscious thought. I think this is true because always after a period of absence from the game I always solve the puzzle than baffled me for half an hour within a minute usually. It can't just be luck for this to happen everytime. I've noticed that unless I go away from the game then I remain stumped and wont ever figure it out. It's like our conscious minds dont have access to as much raw power as the subconscious and I have to put this game to the back of my mind to be able to figure out the puzzle. Its amazing when I think about it. We truly are organic machines. Designed or perhaps random convergence but I refuse to believe this now. I'm not religious but I believe there is something more to the human being than simply an evolved animal. I'm loving the game and like games with this kind of subject matter like Soma, ect. I also like the Prometheus movie and alien covenant even though they are not really that popular but the subject of what makes us human and does a machine have a soul truly stirs something deep inside me. I long to find the answers to such things and after an event in my life where I had a near death experience and experienced something other worldly and profound I now look at the world differently and have become a believer in the quantum immortality theory due to this personal very hard to explain experience. Anyway I'm going off on a tangent and would like to conclude with asking does anyone know any other games like this or soma that have this kind of theme about what makes is human?
submitted by Ozymandies2003 to TheTalosPrinciple [link] [comments]

PT Super Public Chain has the potential to outperform all mainstream public chains

PT Super Public Chain has the potential to outperform all mainstream public chains
Public chains have become a topic that is widely discussed, and it used to be all about comparing who had the better headlines and everyone was talking about Blockchain 3.0. Their normal method was to take a prominent indicator and make comparisons between them and a mainstream public chain in the market, and then come to a predetermined conclusion. Few articles objectively and comprehensively compare the current mainstream public chains in the market and give the public an intuitive and credible conclusion. Today, we are going to break this bad habit of this industry and make a horizontal comparison of the current mainstream public chains, and thus intuitively and objectively tell you what the differences are between public chains.

https://preview.redd.it/heczp9tj29t51.jpg?width=1772&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cbac81221394b3d5294b8c6eb1be52581b0d725f
Contestants:
First generation public chain: BTC (father of blockchain)
Second generation public chain representatives: ETH, EOS
Third generation public chain representatives: polkaDOT, VDS, PT public chain
Criteria for the different generations: classification

  • First generation public chain: mainly referring to the transformation from theory to the implementation of blockchain, Bitcoin is recognized as the representative of the first generation of blockchain.
  • Second generation public chain: the main purpose is to explore the possibility of blockchain applications, among which ETH is the representative. Although EOS claims to be the third-generation public chain, it really should belong to the enhanced version of the second-generation public chain.
  • Third generation public chain is on top of the second generation. It has generally found its niche, and comes with more valuable technical public chains, such as VDS resonance, or polkaDOT’s superb cross chain innovation, PT public chain's full chain compatibility mode and ultra-high throughput.
Four dimensions for comparison:

  • Public chain consensus: the core indicator of public chain innovation, which directly affects the performance and security of the public chain, with a top score of five stars.
Usage scenarios of the public chain: it mainly reflects the commercial value of the public
  • TPS: before upgrading to the 2.0 network, the TPS of ETH can only handle 30 transactions per second, which is considered to be in the weak category, and thus I can only give 1.5 stars.

  • Influence: the representative of the second generation blockchain, giving it 4 stars.
To sum up, the average score of the second-generation public chain ETH is 3.625 stars.
EOS (Second generation public chain):

  • Consensus: OPOS is a new set of consensus created in addition to POW, which perfectly avoids the shortcomings of the POW consensus mechanism. However, its own security has not been recognized by the community. Coupled with the existence of a centralized "referee mechanism", DPOS on the EOS chain has always received mixed reviews in the industry. At this stage, it only deserves a 3-star rating.

  • Usage scenario: thanks to the improvement of the consensus mechanism, EOS has the possibility of being suitable for large-scale applications. There have also been popular applications such as Pixel Wars. However, due to the high rental costs of CPU resources, developers are becoming more and more distant from the EOS ecosystem, and it has been a long time since there have been any popular new applications, so only 2.5 stars.

  • TPS: EOS claimed to have a million concurrency at the beginning of development, but the actual tested volume is 3800 transactions per second at the moment. Compared with the first two public chains, this was a major breakthrough, scoring it 5 stars.

  • Influence: at the beginning when launched, there was a massive wave of interest but then there were no popular applications and the ecosystem has gradually withered away, so influence gets only 2 stars.
To sum up, the average score of the second-generation public chain EOS is 3.125 stars.
polkaDOT (Third generation public chain)

  • Consensus: NPOS is an updated consensus, based on an improved DPOS. The double confirmation mechanism makes it more difficult for nodes to be corrupted, but the cost is higher, so taking into account the utility of the public chain performance, I’ll give it 4 stars.

  • Usage scenarios: polkaDOT provides a cross-chain relay chain mode, and its own positioning is to connect highways without public chains. At present, there is still a lack of real demand in terms of practical scenarios. So far, polkaDOT has been in a tepid state, giving it 3.5 stars.

  • TPS: the processing is 1000 transactions per second on the chain, and taking into account the safety and efficiency, this is a relatively ideal performance, giving an overall score is 4 stars. United States, but at present, based on its budding state, it can only score 2 stars for the time being.
    To sum up, the average score of the third-generation public chain PT is 3.5 stars.
In summary, from the score point of view, the scores of the three generations of public chain are beyond my original expectations. The second-generation public chain is still the preferred platform for mainstream applications, with mature technology, a friendly development environment and low user education costs being the key advantages. However, the third-generation public chain, as a latecomer, generally has a lower score. The technical purposes of the third-generation public chain are very obvious, so there is the phenomenon of partiality. Some of the main functions came close to a full score, while the rest scored relatively low.
https://preview.redd.it/vic3k7j049t51.jpg?width=3334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=27a24ce91445d25881d25a8ac8abbbdffbf82a8f
I am very optimistic about the PT public chain. As a latecomer, PT public chain has the first decentralized Dpos+Spos consensus mechanism in the blockchain circle. It has high security, high privacy levels, high efficiency, high capacity expansion, supports compatibility and cross chain technologies, which makes it easier to carry out multi technology development. It also innovates the efficiency of the destruction mechanism of mining coalescence, effectively improving the shortcomings of the traditional mining allocation mechanism, eliminating speculative players, and increasing the participation rate of consensus innovation in the technology and methodology. However, due to the weakness of the latecomers themselves, the ecosystem is in its infancy, and there has not been enough time for all of the innovative mechanisms to be tested by the market, so I can
chain and is an important basis for measuring the commercial prospects of the public chain, with a top score of five stars.
  • TPS of public chain: represents the maximum potential upper limit of the public chain, with top score of five stars.
Influence / achievement of public chain: represents the contribution value of the public chain to the blockchain industry, with a top score of five stars.
These four dimensions mainly consider the practicability of the public chain, and focus on the commercial value itself, as I believe that productivity is the only standard by which to measure technology.
BTC (first generation public chain)

  • Consensus: POW (workload proof mechanism) this is a consensus with the highest degree of security and decentralization so far. The disadvantage is that it is less efficient, because it is the pioneer of POW, so we will give it a great score of 4 stars.

  • Usage scenario: digital currency (payments, transfers, asset management) although BTC is currently the most commonly accepted digital currency, it has a single purpose. We give it a score of 2.5 stars.

  • TPS: it can only process 7 transactions per second, which is also the major factor restricting the popularity of BTC at present. This was a technology compromise in the initial start-up stage, we can only rate it 1.5 stars.

  • Influence: the father of blockchain, the founder of digital currency, it has to be the top score of 5 stars.
To sum up, the average score of the first-generation public chain is 3.25 stars.
ETH (Second generation public chain)

  • Consensus: POW (Proof of Workload) it is the same as bitcoin's consensus mechanism, and its advantages and disadvantages are also basically the same. The difference is that ETH has added an algorithm against mining machines, which makes the computing power more decentralized. In addition, the witness mechanism of DPOS was introduced in the era of ETH2.0, which means I can give a score of 4 stars.

  • Usage scenario: in terms of applications, ETH is invincible. It has the largest user group and developer team in the industry. It has produced popular and even quasi killer applications like Cryptocat, FOMO3D and DEFI, which is the king of blockchain applications. This gives it a full score of five stars.
  • Influence: the influence is limited to a small portion of the technology exploration community, giving it a 2.5-star rating.
To sum up, the average score of the third-generation public chain polkaDOT is 3.5 stars.
VDS (Third generation public chain)

  • Consensus: due to the lack of powerful computing power to support it, the safety and the performance of the public chain have basically not been considered, so, only 1.5 stars can be given.

  • Usage scenario: it has its own resonance mechanism, and it is no exaggeration to say that VDS was the most popular public chain in 2019. It immediately gained explosive popularity in the industry. We have to give credit to this kind of strength, scoring it 4.5 stars.

  • TPS: the official marker is 60,000 transactions per second, but there is no way to evaluate it, and only one star is given.

  • Influence: the once explosive project is now a thing of the past. All of the ecological hot spots have already been extinguished and only one star can be given.
To sum up, the average score of the third-generation public chain VDS is 1.875 stars.
PT Public Chain (Third generation public chain)

  • Consensus: DPOS+SPOS, double consensus. This is the application of the latest blockchain research results, which effectively balances the differing demands of security, efficiency and decentralization. It may become the mainstream in the future. Here I’m giving a high score of 4.5 stars.

  • Usage scenario: built-in cross chain, quantum computer confrontation, and has the first multi-currency aggregate mining mode. At present, PT public chain is the only fair chain in existence with zero pre-mining, zero reservations and zero handling charges. It is a public chain with long-term development potential. The PT public chain has just been put online, and the current ecosystem is still far from perfect, so, only scoring 4 stars.

  • TPS: under the normal condition of the main chain, the processing speed of 4,000 transactions per second is excellent, but the PT public chain also has a hidden power-up mode. Once the fragmentation mechanism is enabled, processing speed of up to 100,000 transactions per second can be achieved, which is quite amazing data. At present, it can only be given 3.5 stars based on the normal state.
Influence: as a public chain, PT has utilized a lot of new technology research, and also has a lot of innovation built into the operations. Recently, it has become popular in Europe and the only give it a low score unfortunately.
However, this score can only be used as a reference based on the specific current environment. Over time, the public chain ecosystem has had its ups and downs, user migration, pop-ups, technology iterations, etc., I still believe that the public chain, with its technical advantages and model innovations, such as PT, can stand out in the market, and time will be the best witness. Just as the PT white paper says, you will slowly get rich together if you make the right choice.
submitted by According_Ticket7936 to u/According_Ticket7936 [link] [comments]

[ Bitcoin ] Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

Topic originally posted in Bitcoin by almkglor [link]
This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given private key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

almkglor your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

Quantum-Proof Encryption?

Safing team -
What are your thoughts on so-called quantum-proof encryption?
  1. Is it possible?
  2. Are you planning on making it at some point?
  3. This would put you on the map.
Google has let slip recently that they have a quantum computer. Many people believe it's "not there yet", and won't be for a long time.
Here's a different perspective.
Most people don't understand what quantum computers are. They probably just think it's next-gen or something harmless like that, because they simply don't have a category for it.
However, for those who do understand what it is - in my case, I think I kind of understand it - find its implications completely terrifying and overwhelming.
Emotions are a funny thing. If I were to take the average Joe on the street and explain to them about how data tracking works, they'd be absolutely horrified.
For example, I could sit someone down and explain to them about how Google is invisibly present on nearly every website they visit. I could demonstrate this using uMatrix in real time. "Look! Here they are. (Click to the next website.) Here they are. (Click to the next website.) Here they are again. (Click.) Again."
And when they first realize this, they are horrified. I've seen it over and over again, because I tell anyone who will listen. They are so horrified, in fact, that their defense mechanisms kick in. The most common defense mechanism is to simply shut it off and forget it. They'll say, "Oh well, what can I do about it? Who cares what I buy on Amazon? I have nothing to hide. I'm boring. I don't do drugs, I'm not having an affair, I don't break the law."
But some have a different defense mechanism. They seek to understand it, in order to protect themselves. Here's a threat, so I have to "know thy enemy". These are the privacy geeks, who dive into this head first. You can see them on the privacy subs. They're trying to wrap their heads around it.
But eventually, something happens to them too. Eventually, they realize that the problem is far worse than even their fears imagined. They become paranoid and take extreme measures. Some go very far down this road.
Eventually, the paranoia leaves them exhausted and they reach their limit. They're spending half their waking moments studying it, following it, trying to understand it, trying to set their devices up with the latest and greatest thing that they think will protect them.
The more stable among them eventually realize that their paranoia is toxic, and they realize that they have to strike a balance. They know they have to begin to pick their battles and make some compromises. They realize their "enemy" is too powerful for them.
There is one thing, however, that people have come to trust. Encryption. If their traffic is encrypted, they "know" it's "safe". VPNs. The Tor browser and its layers of encryption.
But quantum computers could change that. I understand quantum computers like this...
Imagine a child at a sit-down restaurant with a kids' menu. On the back of that kids' menu is a maze. They try out one path, it reaches a dead end. So they go back and try a different path, but that too is a dead end. They keep trying paths until they finally get to the end of the maze.
Computers perform calculations that work similarly to the maze. They try one solution, then another, then another, then another, until finally, they get the solution. The attempts are linear: one solution attempt after another. Think of movies where they depict a computer trying to break a password. They show all the characters in the password, and they're flashing through all possible characters. Then suddenly, one of the characters stops flashing. That character is a T. The next one suddenly stops, and that's a 4. On and on it goes, until all the characters are locked in place.
This is how Bitcoin mining works, for example. It takes a LOT of processing power to complete a calculation that produces one Bitcoin. This helps control the supply of Bitcoins. (I wonder who's collecting these solutions?)
But a quantum computer doesn't work like that. It's not linear. A quantum computer can attempt every possible solution at once. In the maze, it can attempt every possible path at once. It can crack even a very long, very complex password instantly. It can mine a Bitcoin in a moment. Snap your fingers. Bitcoin. Snap your fingers again. Another Bitcoin. One computer. Nearly instantaneously.
A quantum computer could be powerful enough to break encryption in real time, no matter how complex. This capability is so powerful it blows the mind. And then there's DNA-based processors, which can multiply, which also allows them to try every solution at once. It just multiplies as many times as necessary. If quantum computers are finite, DNA computers could theoretically be infinite. I think. (But I won't pretend to totally grasp what we're talking about here.)
A quantum-based or DNA-based laptop could theoretically be more powerful than all the processors in the entire world on every computer, including super computers and all the servers, combined.
I have brought this up in privacy forums. The standard, defense-mechanism-based answer is, "But that's YEARS away! The capability just isn't there yet! Look at what the publicly-available information says about it!"
But we're talking about Google. They have secrets, don't they? They're invisibly present on almost every website we visit. Their power stems from the fact that most people have no idea that that's true. How it all works is proprietary. There's a lot of guessing going on. No one knows for sure.
But if Google has ANY secrets at all, wouldn't they keep the capabilities of their quantum computer secret? Isn't it kind of surprising that the public knows (and has already forgotten) that Google has a functioning quantum computer? So does IBM. What capabilities do these possess, which the public knows nothing about? I assume the capability is greater than the public knows.
Right now, Google is "cooperating" with China on AI. It is publicly known that China has made tremendous advances in quantum computing. Connect the dots.
A quantum computer, fully functioning, could break encryption in real time. With the resources Google has, especially when combined with the resources of the Chinese government, imagine what they could do. Google already has all the data. They could decrypt it ALL. And they could share it with the Chinese government, who I'm sure would be willing to pay any price for it.
If Google is willing to cooperate on AI with China, where's their red-line as a company? What line will they say, "Oh no, we wouldn't do that. It would be unethical." China has actual concentration camps. Just like the Nazis once did. They put Muslims there. They force people to have abortions, repress religions, and even force some people to donate their organs. At least, there seems to be solid evidence that these things are occurring. This is a country ruled by sociopaths who seek to take over the world.
Why would anyone ever trust Google to "don't be evil", when clearly they have no ethical scruples whatsoever? Google, as a company, is a sociopath. Completely heartless. They are willing to exploit people in secret and cooperate with the Chinese communist party and their military. Why? To make money. If that's true, what else would they be willing to do?
I don't know if there is or even could be any such thing as quantum-proof encryption. I'm extremely skeptical, personally. But if it does exist, or could exist, then we need it. And we need it like 10 years ago.
So - does it exist? Could it exist? Could SPN employ it?
submitted by On3KI9oC9I7ERmJI to safing [link] [comments]

No, a quantum computer wont instantly reward you with 69000 Bitcoins ... yet (current BTC/USD price is $10,137.56)

Latest Bitcoin News:
No, a quantum computer wont instantly reward you with 69000 Bitcoins ... yet
Other Related Bitcoin Topics:
Bitcoin Price | Bitcoin Mining | Blockchain
The latest Bitcoin news has been sourced from the CoinSalad.com Bitcoin Price and News Events page. CoinSalad is a web service that provides real-time Bitcoin market info, charts, data and tools.
submitted by coinsaladcom to CoinSalad [link] [comments]

Zhuoer Jiang: Talk about the difference between BTC, BCH and BSV

Zhuoer Jiang: Talk about the difference between BTC, BCH and BSV

https://preview.redd.it/kcdq7qrjnyd51.jpg?width=570&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=af67bd46683fbe3ffa6c081d490d69598dd83bbb
1. When do you contact Bitcoin? What do you think of the blockchain industry?
I came into contact with Bitcoin in October 2013. At that time, I was making game aids, which involved the issue of collecting money from Taiwan and Southeast Asia.
The reason for cultivating the blockchain industry is that blockchain is the only industry that can provide economic freedom. The blockchain is decentralized and has no control center, so no one can eliminate it, so it provides economic freedom. The counter-example is Qvod player. Although Qvod player also has tens of thousands of nodes, it is centralized. As long as the control center is killed, the Qvod player network will die. (QvodPlayer is a Chinese-based video-on-demand playback software, using P2P technology, users can watch online film and television programs through buffering. In mainland China, QvodPlayer has a huge number of users. Due to the use of a dedicated transmission protocol, QvodPlayer is used by some users to download banned videos, such as violent or pornographic videos, and politically sensitive videos. In addition, pirated movies are rampant in QvodPlayer)
I am not a Bitcoinist. As long as other tokens provide economic freedom, I will buy them with real money. My position portfolio is BCH 40% + BTC 30% + ETH 20% + economically free innovative currency 10%, and I think that ETH is likely to exceed BTC in total market value in this bull market.
2. What is the difference between BTC, BCH and BSV?
The easiest thing to see is the difference in block size. BTC blocks have been locked at about 1MB, while BSV advocates infinite blocks. BCH advocates a moderate block size, which cannot exceed the carrying capacity of an ordinary computer. The current value is about 32MB.
Both BTC and BSV have gone to extremes. The BTC development team, Core, pursues extreme decentralization, resulting in too small blocks and high transaction fees. In the last bull market, a transaction fee was as high as hundreds of thousands of yuan, which caused a large number of BTC users to flow out to BCH, ETH and other tokens.
Some people think that BTC can rely entirely on stored-value users instead of using users to survive. This is impossible. If there are no users, there are no stored value users. For example, gold is obviously more suitable for storing value, but almost everyone has bank deposits, except for the elderly, almost no one uses gold to store value. To
People usually use paper money to store value, and naturally they also use paper money to store value. It is impossible to use paper money to store value with gold, and it is impossible to use paper money for small transactions and gold for large transactions. Currency has a scale effect, and it must be a winner takes all.
BSV has gone to the other extreme. The blockchain is enough to store transaction data, but if the blockchain is used as cloud storage, no amount of space is enough. Think about how many resources the world has to store. The result is that the performance requirements are too high, the number of nodes is drastically reduced, and the foundation of the blockchain, which is decentralization, is lost. In the end, it falls into the same fate as the Qvod player. To
Behind the different block sizes are the differences in the spirit of the three. Just like during the Opium War, the difference between Britain and China's Qing Dynasty was not a superficial weapon, but a complete political, economic, and technological gap behind it.
Both BTC and BSV are irrational and religious to a certain extent. BTC advocates a deadlock block size, and BSV advocates a deadlock protocol. The two are very similar.
In terms of rational development and serving users, BCH has won. For example, the issuance of tokens is an important function and rigid demand of the blockchain. Tokens can already be issued on BCH through several protocols such as Wormhole and SLP, while BTC and BSV cannot yet. This is a huge difference in development.
3. Under what circumstances can BCH exceed BTC?
BCH has to wait for users to slowly develop until the number of users and transactions exceed BTC. Although under normal circumstances, the currency has a scale effect, this situation is unlikely to happen, but BTC made a fatal mistake, and locked the block and locked the user.
What if BTC expands like BCH?
First of all, BTC cannot be expanded because the expansion requires a hard fork, regardless of whether it is within the community or the Core, it must adhere to 1MB, insist on extreme decentralization, and BTC must be able to run on the Raspberry Pi. The result is that the expansion advocates in BTC and Core re-hard fork.
Isn't this the plot of the hard fork of BCH from BTC in 2017? So what are these "advocates" doing hard forking again? Just go straight to BCH.
Therefore, BTC must undergo a hard fork to expand, so it cannot be expanded.
So BCH only needs to catch up, which is a fixed goal. I estimate that in this bull market, BCH can exceed the number of users. At that time, BCH had a solid foundation of users and communities. The price increase only increases the price of BCH, the value of BCH is determined by the number of users, and the price fluctuates around the value.
4. Will BCH hard fork happen? What impact will it have on us later?
The BCH community has recently had a lot of discussions on the issue of miner donations, which reflects the decentralization of BCH.
If BCH is controlled by bitmain, why it took a long time for bitmain to implement this problem? Conversely, if CSW wants to modify something on BSV, it can be passed immediately.
5. Do you think BCH is worth long-term ownership?
I often say: "Ask God in the short term, and the number of users in the long term."
The longer the time, the more worth holding BCH. BCH is developing rapidly due to the correct route. I just gave an example. There are already several schemes for issuing tokens on BCH, but neither BTC nor BSV have one. Part of it is because BSV locks the protocol and is not convenient for development. The other part It is because the BSV community has inherited the characteristics of CSW and only speaks big words and does not do practical things.
Therefore, it is definitely worth holding for 1 to 2 years, and the rate of increase is likely to be higher than that of BTC. I predict that the highest point of this round of bull market for BCH will rise from about 3.6% of BTC to 10% to 20% of BTC.
8. Free Q&A
"Will Bitcoin die due to quantum computers or other reasons?"
Certainly not, at best, replace a quantum-resistant algorithm. Looking at it now, quantum computers will not be practical for a long time. And I think quantum computers may not be able to solve the NP problem, that is, the current asymmetric encryption problem, which may not be possible mathematically.
"The impact of the proliferation of contract transactions on currency prices?"
The currency price is ultimately determined by the number of users, not by speculative users. The proliferation of futures trading has happened long ago. From 2016 to 2017, in the presence of a large number of futures trading, BTC rose 100 times.
"Will you be notified when you escape?"
I will definitely not inform. I have already made predictions. I think the bull market may end in the second half of 2021. Or conversely, this bull market may last for two to three years, and two years are more likely.
Why not notify? Most of my clients are miners, and the currency price directly affects the income of the miners. If the currency price drops due to my notification, the interests of my clients will be damaged.
"Recommended regular investment in 2019, what strategy is recommended in 2020?"
This year's bull market has begun, and it must be a full position investment. The cost of regular investment to buy coins later is very high.
"Is it better to speculate or to mine now?"
Most people can't insist on holding the token from start to finish. Most people are in the middle of the bull market, or even sell it at the beginning, and then miss the entire bull market.
Only miners, no matter what level of miners, will hold the token from beginning to end. During the entire bull market, miners are very profitable. Miners will certainly not sell the goose that lays golden eggs like mining machines in the bull market, so miners tend to make more. The earliest miners are basically still active in the market, and their wealth is free, while the earliest holders of coins are almost gone.
submitted by paulcheung1990 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Cryptocurrencies are going to loose their value instantly somewhen in the next two decades.

Hi folks. So I just stumbled upon this subreddit and I hope this doesnt break the "no repetition" rule. So Im a computer science student and do some stuff concerning quantum computing. Some of you can probably guess what comes next, for those who dont I'll give a very brief explanation how that is related to bitcoin and so on. Im sure you all know the value of e.g. Bitcoins comes from the time it take to "mine" them. The reason for that being so relatively time-intensive is that current computers arent actually very good for these kind of computation. Thats a whole different matter with quantum computers though. Unfortunately the kind of computations which are required to mine Bitcoins are exactely the kind which comes incredibly easy for this the kind of technology. The times it takes even shrinks exponantially with the amount available quantum bits. While veing able to solve stuff better in new ways we werent able to before seems gemerally like a good think that means pretty bad news for everything concerning encryption, which means crypto currencies too. This would result in all emcryption becoming essentially worthless. Some is safely encrypted now a days because without the corresponding key a modern encryption would take literally millenia to brute force with normal computers. Quantum computers would make that a matter of days or even hours. Same goes for Bitcoins making them unreliable and unsafe, not to mention that the inflation would be unimaginable and be probably enough to destroy the whole concept on itself. Also recent successfull experimental setups have made it pretty clear that quantum computers with the expected capabilities Im describing here really are to be expected in the next 10-20 years.
Now I'd be interested in how aware the whole bitcoin community is on that matter and what the generel attitude about that is.
(also sorry for any bad english)
submitted by sinistercrowd to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

ABCMint is a quantum resistant cryptocurrency with the Rainbow Multivariable Polynomial Signature Scheme.

Good day, the price is going up to 0.3USDT.

ABCMint Second Foundation

ABCMint has been a first third-party organization that focuses on post-quantum cryptography research and technology and aims to help improve the ecology of ABCMint technology since 2018.


https://abcmintsf.com

https://abcmintsf.com/exchange


What is ABCMint?

ABCMint is a quantum resistant cryptocurrency with the Rainbow Multivariable Polynomial Signature Scheme.

Cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology have attracted a significant amount of attention since 2009. While some cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, are used extensively in the world, these cryptocurrencies will eventually become obsolete and be replaced when the quantum computers avail. For instance, Bitcoin uses the elliptic curved signature (ECDSA). If a bitcoin user?s public key is exposed to the public chain, the quantum computers will be able to quickly reverse-engineer the private key in a short period of time. It means that should an attacker decide to use a quantum computer to decrypt ECDSA, he/she will be able to use the bitcoin in the wallet.

The ABCMint Foundation has improved the structure of the special coin core to resist quantum computers, using the Rainbow Multivariable Polynomial Signature Scheme, which is quantum resisitant, as the core. This is a fundamental solution to the major threat to digital money posed by future quantum computers. In addition, the ABCMint Foundation has implemented a new form of proof of arithmetic (mining) "ABCardO" which is different from Bitcoin?s arbitrary mining. This algorithm is believed to be beneficial to the development of the mathematical field of multivariate.


Rainbow Signature - the quantum resistant signature based on Multivariable Polynomial Signature Scheme

Unbalanced Oil and Vinegar (UOV) is a multi-disciplinary team of experts in the field of oil and vinegar. One of the oldest and most well researched signature schemes in the field of variable cryptography. It was designed by J. Patarin in 1997 and has withstood more than two decades of cryptanalysis. The UOV scheme is a very simple, smalls and fast signature. However, the main drawback of UOV is the large public key, which will not be conducive to the development of block practice technology.

The rainbow signature is an improvement on the oil and vinegar signature which increased the efficiency of unbalanced oil and vinegar. The basic concept is a multi-layered structure and generalization of oil and vinegar.


PQC - Post Quantum Cryptography

The public key cryptosystem was a breakthrough in modern cryptography in the late 1970s. It has become an increasingly important part of our cryptography communications network over The Internet and other communication systems rely heavily on the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, RSA encryption, and the use of the DSA, ECDSA or related algorithms for numerical signatures. The security of these cryptosystems depends on the difficulty level of number theory problems such as integer decomposition and discrete logarithm problems. In 1994, Peter Shor demonstrated that quantum computers can solve all these problems in polynomial time, which made this security issue related to the cryptosystems theory irrelevant. This development is known as the "post-quantum cryptography" (PQC)

In August 2015, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) released an announcement regarding its plans to transition to quantum-resistant algorithms. In December 2016, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced a call for proposals for quantum-resistant algorithms. The deadline was November 30, 2017, which also included the rainbow signatures used for ABCMint.
submitted by WrapBeautiful to ABCMint [link] [comments]

This was the response to ''johnny test is fire''

All over the internet, I notice you churlish cretins lauding the supposedly intellectual television program known as Rick and Morty to make yourselves appear more intelligent by extension, as you are ardent watchers of the aforementioned show. However, you piddling planarians only succeed in illustrating how vapid you really are, as Rick and Morty has the intellectual depth of a petri dish. Truly, the most noetic show is neither Rick and Morty, the Big Bang Theory, Jimmy Neutron, nor any other deluge of drivel you deludable dimwits bombard your brains with. Rather, it is Johnny Test, a pinnacle of animation, sound design, acting, and plot. Despite this, most of you sniveling sub-10000s (someone with an IQ under 10000: for the record, my IQ is several orders of magnitude higher than this; my reason for my usage of this term is simply because I am partial to the number 10000) will dismiss Johnny Test as another subpar piece of rubbish from Teletoon, but you all fail to realize how much genius goes into producing that show. I have watched Johnny Test since I was a juvenile, and already I bear an IQ so toweringly high no known test can measure it (that is to say, no known test for humans can measure it: when using the scale with which computer processing power is evaluated, I clock in at over 8.3 trecentillion yottaflops). I have memorized every facet of human knowledge and only used 32.8% of my potential intelligence (my remaining neurons I allocate towards personal use, research, and wealthy companies for use as server farms and bitcoin mines). Not only that, but I have transformed all of the atoms in my being into a quantum computer to serve as an extension to my enormous encephalon, which handles the menial tasks and other trivialities associated with existence (such as respiration, ingestion, digestion, socializing, et cetera). Capable of perorating proficiently in every method of communication in the world, I have developed my own language that employs a manifold of grammar rules, and I created it all while thrashing a coalition of humanity’s smartest supercomputers in a game of Tic-Tac-Toe (for those who say that Tic-Tac-Toe is “easy,” think about the all the times you’ve played Tic-Tac-Toe: a majority were ties, no? Think about that, and also about the fact that a single, solitary supercomputer, much less over a dozen, is smarter than millions of you combined). And no, you cannot see me type this language because it is purely telepathic. At this point, I can imagine several of you already typing frantically in a fervent effort to keep your egos afloat in the face of such psychological grandeur. That’s right, the collective intelligence of all of you, if we’re using luminosity as an analogy, is akin to a diminutive candle in comparison to the massive quasar that represents my mind. Confronted with this, most of you will attempt to deride me with paltry, nonsensical invective and vitriolic vituperations to protect what minuscule amount of self-esteem you possess. These predictions are not the result of mere intuition, of course. In actuality, I have run several simulations using my brain alone on the possible consequences of my publication of this digital manuscription. My reply to all of you digital detractors is that if you so desire to demonstrate that you are brainier than I, then arrange for an intellectual debate between you and me on a topic of your choosing, any time or place. My schedule is very pliable as I’ve already won over 4 dozen nobel prizes, so I’m perfectly willing to put a temporary halt to my research, if you could even call it that (I speculate without demur that none of your debate skills will be enough of a problem for me to the point where I will be forced to snap out out of my subconscious simulations to employ the use of those neurons). Besides, I don’t want to be a glory hog and leave none of the secrets of the universe left for unlocking. You know, let the dogs have their day and all of that. I already know that none of you simpletons with your senescent synapses will be able to match up to my vast vernacular and verbiage, my mental dexterity with declension, and my phrenic puissance with my phraseology and pronunciation. In a matter of seconds (or possibly longer, if I’ve overestimated your already positively benthic IQs when running my simulations), you’ll fly into cantankerous conniptions after my consummate trouncing and repudiation of every single one of the “facts” that you hold so dear as proof of your purported intellect. And in response to those who claim, overcome with envy and spite, that as intelligent as I am, I will never sleep with anyone: I don’t need to. I am quite capable of simulating, to the meagerest tactile sensation, every position in the Kama Sutra (as well as a few I myself have devised for maximum oxytocin and endorphin release) simultaneously in a few seconds, and the only reason it takes even that long is because I am prolonging the simulation in order to enjoy the experience: I could do it in hundredths of a millisecond if I so wish. However, for someone with such acute acumen as I, life is far too easy. When pure ennui drives you to calculate the movements of the 27 subatomic particles you’ve discovered and how they interact with one another in the 2,038th dimension using a base 3.2407 quadrillion number system, you realize that the universe and its infinite copies and offshoots offer nothing more to you. Except, that is, for Johnny Test. Even for an individual with such altitudinous IQ such as myself, it’s difficult to understand every single subtle joke and reference. That’s not to say I don’t understand any of the plenitude of allusions, in fact, I am able to comprehend virtually every single one. For example, one minutia most of you would fail to notice is when Susan’s chin moves two extra pixels further than in any of the previous episodes when she talks during the seventeenth second of the fifth minute of season 3 episode 10. Hardly any of you would conceive of the fact that this is a reference to the exact number, down to 84 significant figures, of the percent change in total nitrogen in the Earth’s atmosphere due to the eructation of a small cynodont 257 million years ago. There are more examples I could give, such as the color of the walls of the sisters’ lab being a slightly different hue from the norm in season 4 episode 19 (a reference to the presence of approximately 2.9 millimoles of ammonium diuranate in the ink of a Chinese manuscript dated 1256 BCE), but that would detract from the intended purpose of this writing. Johnny Test is a work of art, a perfect concoction of knowledge from a multitude of academic fields that combine to make a program that is the only form of media I have ever encountered that has been even somewhat laborious for me to fathom, and I’m talking about someone who altered the biochemistry and chirality of their body in order to make it more efficient than the prodigality that is the human body. My temples ache with the pain of having to pump copious amounts of Testium (an element I discovered that takes the role of oxygen in my unique biochemistry, named after my favorite show of course) to my brain in order to comprehend what I have just watched. And to everybody who claims that the reason my temples are sore or why I have “delusions of grandeur” are due to my being “high” or whichever way you aim to construe my exegesis of an episode, you will hear vocalizations of a gelatological nature emanating from my larynx whilst Xyzyzyx the paisley pangolin (a treasured acquaintance of mine) and I reflect on your foolishness later that day. I await the furious fussilade of odious obluquies and belittling bombast in the comments below.
“Too long; Did not read”: Did you really think I would include one of these silly little things at the bottom of my witty wordsmithery? It's not my fault if you can't handle my de trop of definitions or my lexical linguipotence! Get back up there and read it, even if you have to go through it with dictionary in hand.
submitted by ICannotFindAName1 to copypasta [link] [comments]

Johnny Test

All over the internet, I notice you churlish cretins lauding the supposedly intellectual television program known as Rick and Morty to make yourselves appear more intelligent by extension, as you are ardent watchers of the aforementioned show. However, you piddling planarians only succeed in illustrating how vapid you really are, as Rick and Morty has the intellectual depth of a petri dish. Truly, the most noetic show is neither Rick and Morty, the Big Bang Theory, Jimmy Neutron, nor any other deluge of drivel you deludable dimwits bombard your brains with. Rather, it is Johnny Test, a pinnacle of animation, sound design, acting, and plot. Despite this, most of you sniveling sub-10000s (someone with an IQ under 10000: for the record, my IQ is several orders of magnitude higher than this; my reason for my usage of this term is simply because I am partial to the number 10000) will dismiss Johnny Test as another subpar piece of rubbish from Teletoon, but you all fail to realize how much genius goes into producing that show. I have watched Johnny Test since I was a juvenile, and already I bear an IQ so toweringly high no known test can measure it (that is to say, no known test for humans can measure it: when using the scale with which computer processing power is evaluated, I clock in at over 8.3 trecentillion yottaflops). I have memorized every facet of human knowledge and only used 32.8% of my potential intelligence (my remaining neurons I allocate towards personal use, research, and wealthy companies for use as server farms and bitcoin mines). Not only that, but I have transformed all of the atoms in my being into a quantum computer to serve as an extension to my enormous encephalon, which handles the menial tasks and other trivialities associated with existence (such as respiration, ingestion, digestion, socializing, et cetera). Capable of perorating proficiently in every method of communication in the world, I have developed my own language that employs a manifold of grammar rules, and I created it all while thrashing a coalition of humanity’s smartest supercomputers in a game of Tic-Tac-Toe (for those who say that Tic-Tac-Toe is “easy,” think about the all the times you’ve played Tic-Tac-Toe: a majority were ties, no? Think about that, and also about the fact that a single, solitary supercomputer, much less over a dozen, is smarter than millions of you combined). And no, you cannot see me type this language because it is purely telepathic. At this point, I can imagine several of you already typing frantically in a fervent effort to keep your egos afloat in the face of such psychological grandeur. That’s right, the collective intelligence of all of you, if we’re using luminosity as an analogy, is akin to a diminutive candle in comparison to the massive quasar that represents my mind. Confronted with this, most of you will attempt to deride me with paltry, nonsensical invective and vitriolic vituperations to protect what minuscule amount of self-esteem you possess. These predictions are not the result of mere intuition, of course. In actuality, I have run several simulations using my brain alone on the possible consequences of my publication of this digital manuscription. My reply to all of you digital detractors is that if you so desire to demonstrate that you are brainier than I, then arrange for an intellectual debate between you and me on a topic of your choosing, any time or place. My schedule is very pliable as I’ve already won over 4 dozen nobel prizes, so I’m perfectly willing to put a temporary halt to my research, if you could even call it that (I speculate without demur that none of your debate skills will be enough of a problem for me to the point where I will be forced to snap out out of my subconscious simulations to employ the use of those neurons). Besides, I don’t want to be a glory hog and leave none of the secrets of the universe left for unlocking. You know, let the dogs have their day and all of that. I already know that none of you simpletons with your senescent synapses will be able to match up to my vast vernacular and verbiage, my mental dexterity with declension, and my phrenic puissance with my phraseology and pronunciation. In a matter of seconds (or possibly longer, if I’ve overestimated your already positively benthic IQs when running my simulations), you’ll fly into cantankerous conniptions after my consummate trouncing and repudiation of every single one of the “facts” that you hold so dear as proof of your purported intellect. And in response to those who claim, overcome with envy and spite, that as intelligent as I am, I will never sleep with anyone: I don’t need to. I am quite capable of simulating, to the meagerest tactile sensation, every position in the Kama Sutra (as well as a few I myself have devised for maximum oxytocin and endorphin release) simultaneously in a few seconds, and the only reason it takes even that long is because I am prolonging the simulation in order to enjoy the experience: I could do it in hundredths of a millisecond if I so wish. However, for someone with such acute acumen as I, life is far too easy. When pure ennui drives you to calculate the movements of the 27 subatomic particles you’ve discovered and how they interact with one another in the 2,038th dimension using a base 3.2407 quadrillion number system, you realize that the universe and its infinite copies and offshoots offer nothing more to you. Except, that is, for Johnny Test. Even for an individual with such altitudinous IQ such as myself, it’s difficult to understand every single subtle joke and reference. That’s not to say I don’t understand any of the plenitude of allusions, in fact, I am able to comprehend virtually every single one. For example, one minutia most of you would fail to notice is when Susan’s chin moves two extra pixels further than in any of the previous episodes when she talks during the seventeenth second of the fifth minute of season 3 episode 10. Hardly any of you would conceive of the fact that this is a reference to the exact number, down to 84 significant figures, of the percent change in total nitrogen in the Earth’s atmosphere due to the eructation of a small cynodont 257 million years ago. There are more examples I could give, such as the color of the walls of the sisters’ lab being a slightly different hue from the norm in season 4 episode 19 (a reference to the presence of approximately 2.9 millimoles of ammonium diuranate in the ink of a Chinese manuscript dated 1256 BCE), but that would detract from the intended purpose of this writing. Johnny Test is a work of art, a perfect concoction of knowledge from a multitude of academic fields that combine to make a program that is the only form of media I have ever encountered that has been even somewhat laborious for me to fathom, and I’m talking about someone who altered the biochemistry and chirality of their body in order to make it more efficient than the prodigality that is the human body. My temples ache with the pain of having to pump copious amounts of Testium (an element I discovered that takes the role of oxygen in my unique biochemistry, named after my favorite show of course) to my brain in order to comprehend what I have just watched. And to everybody who claims that the reason my temples are sore or why I have “delusions of grandeur” are due to my being “high” or whichever way you aim to construe my exegesis of an episode, you will hear vocalizations of a gelatological nature emanating from my larynx whilst Xyzyzyx the paisley pangolin (a treasured acquaintance of mine) and I reflect on your foolishness later that day. I await the furious fussilade of odious obluquies and belittling bombast in the comments below.
“Too long; Did not read”: Did you really think I would include one of these silly little things at the bottom of my witty wordsmithery? It's not my fault if you can't handle my de trop of definitions or my lexical linguipotence! Get back up there and read it, even if you have to go through it with dictionary in hand.
submitted by SuckinSum8---D to copypasta [link] [comments]

Found this monstrosity on r/okbuddyretard

All over the internet, I notice you churlish cretins lauding the supposedly intellectual television program known as Rick and Morty to make yourselves appear more intelligent by extension, as you are ardent watchers of the aforementioned show. However, you piddling planarians only succeed in illustrating how vapid you really are, as Rick and Morty has the intellectual depth of a petri dish. Truly, the most noetic show is neither Rick and Morty, the Big Bang Theory, Jimmy Neutron, nor any other deluge of drivel you deludable dimwits bombard your brains with. Rather, it is Johnny Test, a pinnacle of animation, sound design, acting, and plot. Despite this, most of you sniveling sub-10000s (someone with an IQ under 10000: for the record, my IQ is several orders of magnitude higher than this; my reason for my usage of this term is simply because I am partial to the number 10000) will dismiss Johnny Test as another subpar piece of rubbish from Teletoon, but you all fail to realize how much genius goes into producing that show. I have watched Johnny Test since I was a juvenile, and already I bear an IQ so toweringly high no known test can measure it (that is to say, no known test for humans can measure it: when using the scale with which computer processing power is evaluated, I clock in at over 8.3 trecentillion yottaflops). I have memorized every facet of human knowledge and only used 32.8% of my potential intelligence (my remaining neurons I allocate towards personal use, research, and wealthy companies for use as server farms and bitcoin mines). Not only that, but I have transformed all of the atoms in my being into a quantum computer to serve as an extension to my enormous encephalon, which handles the menial tasks and other trivialities associated with existence (such as respiration, ingestion, digestion, socializing, et cetera). Capable of perorating proficiently in every method of communication in the world, I have developed my own language that employs a manifold of grammar rules, and I created it all while thrashing a coalition of humanity’s smartest supercomputers in a game of Tic-Tac-Toe (for those who say that Tic-Tac-Toe is “easy,” think about the all the times you’ve played Tic-Tac-Toe: a majority were ties, no? Think about that, and also about the fact that a single, solitary supercomputer, much less over a dozen, is smarter than millions of you combined). And no, you cannot see me type this language because it is purely telepathic. At this point, I can imagine several of you already typing frantically in a fervent effort to keep your egos afloat in the face of such psychological grandeur. That’s right, the collective intelligence of all of you, if we’re using luminosity as an analogy, is akin to a diminutive candle in comparison to the massive quasar that represents my mind. Confronted with this, most of you will attempt to deride me with paltry, nonsensical invective and vitriolic vituperations to protect what minuscule amount of self-esteem you possess. These predictions are not the result of mere intuition, of course. In actuality, I have run several simulations using my brain alone on the possible consequences of my publication of this digital manuscription. My reply to all of you digital detractors is that if you so desire to demonstrate that you are brainier than I, then arrange for an intellectual debate between you and me on a topic of your choosing, any time or place. My schedule is very pliable as I’ve already won over 4 dozen nobel prizes, so I’m perfectly willing to put a temporary halt to my research, if you could even call it that (I speculate without demur that none of your debate skills will be enough of a problem for me to the point where I will be forced to snap out out of my subconscious simulations to employ the use of those neurons). Besides, I don’t want to be a glory hog and leave none of the secrets of the universe left for unlocking. You know, let the dogs have their day and all of that. I already know that none of you simpletons with your senescent synapses will be able to match up to my vast vernacular and verbiage, my mental dexterity with declension, and my phrenic puissance with my phraseology and pronunciation. In a matter of seconds (or possibly longer, if I’ve overestimated your already positively benthic IQs when running my simulations), you’ll fly into cantankerous conniptions after my consummate trouncing and repudiation of every single one of the “facts” that you hold so dear as proof of your purported intellect. And in response to those who claim, overcome with envy and spite, that as intelligent as I am, I will never sleep with anyone: I don’t need to. I am quite capable of simulating, to the meagerest tactile sensation, every position in the Kama Sutra (as well as a few I myself have devised for maximum oxytocin and endorphin release) simultaneously in a few seconds, and the only reason it takes even that long is because I am prolonging the simulation in order to enjoy the experience: I could do it in hundredths of a millisecond if I so wish. However, for someone with such acute acumen as I, life is far too easy. When pure ennui drives you to calculate the movements of the 27 subatomic particles you’ve discovered and how they interact with one another in the 2,038th dimension using a base 3.2407 quadrillion number system, you realize that the universe and its infinite copies and offshoots offer nothing more to you. Except, that is, for Johnny Test. Even for an individual with such altitudinous IQ such as myself, it’s difficult to understand every single subtle joke and reference. That’s not to say I don’t understand any of the plenitude of allusions, in fact, I am able to comprehend virtually every single one. For example, one minutia most of you would fail to notice is when Susan’s chin moves two extra pixels further than in any of the previous episodes when she talks during the seventeenth second of the fifth minute of season 3 episode 10. Hardly any of you would conceive of the fact that this is a reference to the exact number, down to 84 significant figures, of the percent change in total nitrogen in the Earth’s atmosphere due to the eructation of a small cynodont 257 million years ago. There are more examples I could give, such as the color of the walls of the sisters’ lab being a slightly different hue from the norm in season 4 episode 19 (a reference to the presence of approximately 2.9 millimoles of ammonium diuranate in the ink of a Chinese manuscript dated 1256 BCE), but that would detract from the intended purpose of this writing. Johnny Test is a work of art, a perfect concoction of knowledge from a multitude of academic fields that combine to make a program that is the only form of media I have ever encountered that has been even somewhat laborious for me to fathom, and I’m talking about someone who altered the biochemistry and chirality of their body in order to make it more efficient than the prodigality that is the human body. My temples ache with the pain of having to pump copious amounts of Testium (an element I discovered that takes the role of oxygen in my unique biochemistry, named after my favorite show of course) to my brain in order to comprehend what I have just watched. And to everybody who claims that the reason my temples are sore or why I have “delusions of grandeur” are due to my being “high” or whichever way you aim to construe my exegesis of an episode, you will hear vocalizations of a gelatological nature emanating from my larynx whilst Xyzyzyx the paisley pangolin (a treasured acquaintance of mine) and I reflect on your foolishness later that day. I await the furious fussilade of odious obluquies and belittling bombast in the comments below. “Too long; Did not read”: Did you really think I would include one of these silly little things at the bottom of my witty wordsmithery? It's not my fault if you can't handle my de trop of definitions or my lexical linguipotence! Get back up there and read it, even if you have to go through it with dictionary in hand.
submitted by bluerazzberryskelly to copypasta [link] [comments]

A Glance at the Heart: Proof-of-Authority Technology in the UMI Network

A Glance at the Heart: Proof-of-Authority Technology in the UMI Network

https://preview.redd.it/vhvj6v093df51.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=00c0c223d9758edec8ed49a8cb9024f96d3ee343
Greetings from the UMI Team! Our Whitepaper describes in detail the key pros and cons of the two mechanisms which the great majority of other cryptocurrencies are based on:
Proof-of-Work (PoW) — mining technology. Used in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero, etc.
Proof-of-Stake (PoS) and its derivatives — forging technology. Used in Nxt, PeerCoin, NEO, PRIZM, etc.
As a result of a careful analysis of PoW and PoS, which are designed to fight against centralization, there came a conclusion that they both fail to perform their main mission and, in the long run, they lead to the network centralization and poor performance. For this reason, we took a different approach. We use Proof-of-Authority (PoA) algorithm coupled with master nodes, which can ensure the UMI network with decentralization and maximum speed.
The Whitepaper allows you to understand the obvious things. This article will give you a clear and detailed explanation of the technology implemented in the UMI network. Let's glance at the heart of the network right now.
Proof-of-Authority: How and Why It Emerged
It's been over a decade since the first transaction in the Bitcoin network. Over this time, the blockchain technology has undergone some qualitative changes. It's down to the fact that the cryptocurrency world seeing the emerging Proof-of-Work defects in the Bitcoin network year after year has actively searched for ways to eliminate them.
PoW decentralization and reliability has an underside of low capacity and scalability problem that prevents the network from rectifying this shortcoming. Moreover, with the growing popularity of Bitcoin, greed of miners who benefit from high fees resulting from the low network throughput has become a serious problem. Miners have also started to create pools making the network more and more centralized. The “human factor” that purposefully slowed down the network and undermined its security could never be eliminated. All this essentially limits the potential for using PoW-based cryptocurrencies on a bigger scale.
Since PoW upgrade ideas came to nothing, crypto community activists have suggested cardinally new solutions and started to develop other protocols. This is how the Proof-of-Stake technology emerged. However, it proved to be excellent in theory rather than in practice. Overall, PoS-based cryptocurrencies do demonstrate a higher capacity, but the difference is not as striking. Moreover, PoS could not fully solve the scalability issue.
In the hope that it could cope with the disaster plaguing all cryptocurrencies, the community came up with brand new algorithms based on alternative operating principles. One of them is the Proof-of-Authority technology. It was meant to be an effective alternative with a high capacity and a solution to the scalability problem. The idea of using PoA in cryptocurrencies was offered by Gavin Wood — a high-profile blockchain programmer and Ethereum co-founder.
Proof-of-Authority Major Features
PoA's major difference from PoW and PoS lies in the elimination of miner or forger races. Network users do not fight for the right to be the first to create a block and receive an award, as it happens with cryptocurrencies based on other technologies. In this case blockchain's operating principle is substantially different — Proof-of-Authority uses the “reputation system” and only allows trusted nodes to create blocks.
It solves the scalability problem allowing to considerably increase capacity and handle transactions almost instantly without wasting time on unnecessary calculations made by miners and forgers. Moreover, trusted nodes must meet the strict capacity requirements. This is one the main reasons why we have selected PoA since this is the only technology allowing to fully use super-fast nodes.
Due to these features, the Proof-of-Authority algorithm is seen as one of the most effective and promising options for bringing blockchain to various business sectors. For instance, its model perfectly fits the logistics and supply chain management sectors. As an outstanding example, PoA is effectively used by the Microsoft Azure cloud platform to offer various tools for bringing blockchain solutions to businesses.
How the UMI Network Gets Rid of the Defects and Incorporates the Benefits of Proof-of-Authority Method
Any system has both drawbacks and advantages — so does PoA. According to the original PoA model, each trusted node can create a block, while it is technically impossible for ordinary users to interfere with the system operation. This makes PoA-based cryptocurrencies a lot more centralized than those based on PoW or PoS. This has always been the main reason for criticizing the PoA technology.
We understood that only a completely decentralized product could translate our vision of a "hard-to-hit", secure and transparent monetary instrument into reality. Therefore, we started with upgrading its basic operating principle in order to create a product that will incorporate all the best features while eliminating the defects. What we’ve got is a decentralized PoA method. We will try to explain at the elementary level:
- We've divided the nodes in the UMI network into two types: master nodes and validator nodes.
- Only master nodes have the right to create blocks and confirm transactions. Among master node holders there's the UMI team and their trusted partners from across the world. Moreover, we deliberately keep some of our partners — those who hold master nodes — in secret in order to secure ourselves against potential negative influence, manipulation, and threats from third parties. This way we ensure maximum coherent and reliable system operation.
- However, since the core idea behind a decentralized cryptocurrency rules out any kind of trust, the blockchain is secured to prevent master nodes from harming the network in the event of sabotage or collusion. It might happen to Bitcoin or other PoW- or PoS-based cryptocurrencies if, for example, several large mining pools unite and perform a 51% attack. But it can’t happen to UMI. First, the worst that bad faith master node holders can do is to negligibly slow down the network. But the UMI network will automatically respond to it by banning such nodes. Thus, master nodes will prevent any partner from doing intentional harm to the network. Moreover, it will not be able to do this, even if most other partners support it. Nothing — not even quantum computers — will help hackers. Read our post "UMI Blockchain Six-Level Security" for more details.
- A validator node can be launched by any participant. Validator nodes maintain the network by verifying the correctness of blocks and excluding the possibility of fakes. In doing so they increase the overall network security and help master nodes carry out their functions. More importantly, those who hold validator nodes control those who hold master nodes and confirm that the latter don't violate anything and comply with the rules. You can find more details about validator nodes in the article we mentioned above.
- Finally, the network allows all interested users to launch light nodes (SPV), which enables viewing and sending transactions without having to download the blockchain and maintain the network. With light nodes, any network user can make sure if the system is operating properly and doesn't have to download the blockchain to do this.
- In addition, we are developing the ability to protect the network in case 100% of the master nodes (10,000 master nodes in total) are "disabled" for some reason. Even this is virtually impossible, we've thought ahead and in the worst-case scenario, the system will automatically move to PoS. By doing so, it will be able to continue processing transactions. We're going to tell you about this in our next publications.
Thus, the UMI network uses an upgraded version of this technology which possesses all its advantages with drawbacks eliminated. This model is truly decentralized and maximum secured.
Another major drawback of PoA-based cryptos is no possibility to grant incentives to users. PoA doesn't imply forging or mining which allow users to earn cryptocurrency while generating new coins. No reward for maintaining the network is the main reason why the crypto community is not interested in PoA. This is, of course, unfair. With this in mind, the UMI team has found the best solution — the unique staking smart-contract. It allows you to increase the number of your coins up to 40% per month even with no mining or forging meaning the human factor cannot have a negative impact on the decentralization and network performance.
New-Generation Proof-of-Authority
The UMI network uses an upgraded version of PoA technology which possesses all its advantages with drawbacks virtually eliminated. This makes UMI a decentralized, easily scalable, and yet the most secure, productive, profitable and fair cryptocurrency, working for the sake of all people.
The widespread use of UMI can change most aspects of society in different areas, including production, commerce, logistics, and all financial arrangements. We are just beginning this journey and thrilled to have you with us. Let's change the world together!
Best regards, UMI Team!
submitted by UMITop to u/UMITop [link] [comments]

renting Quantum computer for mining Etherium in 2017? QASM is here and it's API New quantum computer miner with using multiverse for Bitcoin mining. How to mine $1,000,000 of Bitcoin using just a laptop ... Bitcoin Q&A: Nonces, mining, and quantum computing Will Quantum Computing Destroy Bitcoin?

Bitcoin Mining with Quantum Computers. Would quantum computers be able to mine bitcoin more efficiently than classical computers? D wave apparently is selling a 2000 qubit machine. 14 comments. share. save hide report. 80% Upvoted. This thread is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. Sort by. best. View discussions in 1 other community. level 1. 8 points · 2 years ... The problems that quantum computers could cause to bitcoin mining are basically two: ... Of course, such a scenario would be full of potentially negative consequences, especially if the quantum computer were to stop mining after the difficulty had skyrocketed, as it would be necessary to wait another 2,016 blocks to see it decrease. However, given the relative slowness with which the ... But there is one opportunity for quantum computing. Touching the Bitcoin network would almost certainly be a touch of death. Even if a quantum computer mined merely 2016 blocks, in theory this would raise the difficulty so high that regular mining equipment would take an impossibly long time to create another 2016 blocks and reduce difficulty. If quantum computers grow in speed and shrink in price over time, then their inherent per-operation advantage in mining might allow them to out-compete classical computers in Bitcoin mining at some point, probably far in the future; this is comparable to the historic move from CPUs to GPUs to ASICs in Bitcoin's past, and would not be an issue. Timeline / plausibility. Creating a quantum ... If one user gains access to a quantum computer, they could produce hashes very quickly and gain dominance over the Bitcoin mining network, potentially exposing the network to a 51% attack. But many developers believe this is not a serious problem. As long as multiple users have access to a quantum computer, no single quantum computer will gain dominance over Bitcoin mining. Alternative proof ...

[index] [22143] [3406] [8280] [16677] [35882] [9441] [35800] [23715] [24975] [20347]

renting Quantum computer for mining Etherium in 2017? QASM is here and it's API

A lot of people are concerned about the impacts quantum computing will have on bitcoin. With a super-fast super-cooled computer, the bitcoin blockchain could be hacked, my passwords could be brute ... Quantum computers are coming online this year - and they might pose a threat to bitcoin, ethereum, and even modern cryptography. Find out what they can do an... New quantum computer miner with using multiverse for Bitcoin mining. If you want know how it work, use me pool for mining https://zmining.in.ua/ PS:music Fringe - Theme. Watch how quantum computers are here and if it's qubits can do anything with ECDHA keys as the crypto algo is of the following formula P=NP which reminds quantum computing. Please share your ... Who generates the nonce? What makes it random? How is nonce-guessing important to the competitive process of mining? What happens if the hashing algorithm (SHA-256) was compromised? Is quantum ...

#