Bitcoin Forum

All the speculators realized that they were the only ones playing the game.
no higher  than $5 dec 31st.

If you get scared, Im offering to buy out any large holders now at $4.50.

Make the bet on betsofbitcoin and I'll sign up and take the other side of it.

-bgc

That would be awesome but I doubt it unless we get some bad news.

ASIC miners coming soon, and blocks are splitting.

The price is SURE to fluctuate. Which way? No one knows.

That is actually some amazing timing.

What bubble?

Considering that Gavin is busy testing Multisig transactions (https://gist.github.com/2839617), I don't expect any bad news.

thats the one.

For the groups that actually use bitcoin as a currency a drop to a flat $3 price would be extremely welcome.
I will create the bet shortly.

Since when is a month-long 20% value increase a bubble?

Really? You're making a judgement based off of one indicator? Don't skew the picture with narrow technicals: zoom out and get some perspective. There's also the possibility that RSI remains consistently above 50 during a steady growth phase, which would see sideways movement instead of declines. And don't forget the fundamentals - there are a growing number of entities with an interest in stability!

http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/chart.png?width=940&m=mtgoxUSD&SubmitButton=Draw&r=&i=&c=0&s=&e=&Prev=&Next=&t=S&b=&a1=SMA&m1=10&a2=SMA&m2=25&x=0&i1=RSI&i2=MACD&i3=MFI&i4=&v=1&cv=1&ps=0&l=0&p=0&

@ Miscreanity,

Out of curiosity, are those the indicators you use most frequently?  I always use RSI, MACD, and Money Flow Index (and momentum) when I head to Bitcoincharts.com

Yes, usually. I watch some other indicators as well, one being something of a weekly money flow + Bollinger hybrid. Nothing has shown a strong enough signal for me to sell yet.

Too many people bought bitcoins on the way up from $5 because of:

- Hopes for a Greek exit from the Euro
- The Spanish hitting unsustainable bond rates and being forced out too
- The US Federal Reserve hitting the Print button on its computers

None of the three happened so it's natural there's going to be a sell off.  Probably back to the mid $5 range, unless Europe turns pear shaped.  Could happen any day, or not happen at all.  People will take easy profits off the table in the meantime.

Why?

It will not take long until greece exit the euro
The real crisis did not come yet

Btc is only in correction mode after the unhealthy panic-rise to 6.80

Definitely.  Of course, we'll want to get in at the bottom, so I'll set my buy order for $3.01, just for safety.  Hmm, but what if someone else wants those $3 coins and sees my $3.01?  I'd better set it at $3.02.  Hmmm.  $3.05.

No... $3.10, definitely.  That's as high as I'll go.


Oh okay, $4.51.

DAMNIT!  $5.00 and that's my final offer.

$5.50.







$6

Bollocks, $6.20

that, right there? is hilarious.

I'd love to take the opposing side of that wager!

In the past I've sometimes been afraid when the price goes down and resorted to going on the "defensive" to defend Bitcoin. Not going to do that here. Declining to $3 is absolutely ridiculous, the OP is borderline trollish. The momentum of Bitcoin is right now very strong, corrections on the short term are natural but a strong decline doesn't make any sense just now.

Not that I haven't been wrong in the past but I'm serious when I say that following OP's advice could be a very bad move. I don't think that many will fall for it though, the bear trap is way too obvious.

With all of this I'm not saying that we can't decline to $5.x, that is possible. Anything below $5 I see as extremely unlikely unless radical changes happen regarding the right now very positive fundamental Bitcoin trend (news, developments, usage).

1.) BFL is probably not keeping the thousands of bitcoins being sent their way from their BitForce SC pre-sales orders.  The was a burst of those orders placed when they launched the order form.

2.) Many Bitcoinica folks whose bitcoins were tied up went ahead and bought more until such time that the payouts started.  The payouts started.

3.) The great growth story (SatoshiDICE) is flailing about -- their "under 1%" house edge went to 1.5% for a while, now it is at 3%.   There's a huge difference between the two as far as a gambler is concerned, and the trajectory for Bitcoin usage fell back to earth after this latest change.

As much as I like mem and his posts against BFL I can seriously call BS on this.

With reward drop coming $10 is inevitable sometime this year or Jan 2013.

Almost half of all the bitcoins on the MtGox order book are now placed between the current price and $7.00.

This is all about speculation :)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_uoQsu0vbWqo/TAyyTpR59sI/AAAAAAAABSk/Wy8rNgzky4A/s400/buy-sell-panic.jpg

It's the trinity of speculating.

mem put your money where your mouth is; I'll take YOUR BTC for 4.50USD

Could it happened to be because a large amount of Bitcoin was just added to the MtGox market? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89734.msg987907#msg987907 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89734.msg987907#msg987907)

you guys are crazy


i'm calling bottom now....

The biggest rally - the one cut off by Mt. Gox getting hacked - was from $1 to $30. That popped, but the lowest it ever went back to was $2; there was enormous resistance there, and $2 became the new bottom, and the price slowly began climbing back up from there.

The most recent big rally was from $3.20 to $7. That eventually popped, but the lowest it ever went back to was $4; there was enormous resistance there, and $4 became the new bottom, and the price eventually stabilized at $5, where it sat rather comfortably for about three months.

This rally was from $5 to $6.75. Why, this time, will we bottom out at lower than we began?

I'm still unconvinced that the reward drop will have an effect like this. Block reward affects production rate, not supply, and the difficulty exists to insulate mining costs from the price.

I like bubbles

http://jennyhansenauthor.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/dory-needs.jpg

Two facts to remember.

As blocks are found bitcoins are added to the pool. At the moment 50BTC a block 6 times an hour.

If all the solved blocks end up being sold on MTGox Exchange thats a big "IF". Then that exchange will need to absorb 7200BTC a day. At the present market value $6.3 it is just over $45,000 USD a day.

Once the reward is 25BTC then the MTGox Exchange will only need to absorb 3600BTC a day to keep the same price.
IF the market value is the same at that time then it is just over $22,000 USD a day.

As more users adopt Bitcoin and use its network. Demand will only increase, compound this fact with less bitcoin entering the market via the traditional means, Bitcoin value against USD will also increase.

This is a pay week for many. Will be interesting to see what happens this Friday - weekend.

It is worth noting that when RSI and Money Flow both popped in early December the price then proceeded to go from $2.50 to $7.00 in less than two months, so this could still be the START of an increase, though with the BFL announcement I'm thinking a dip down to $5 range again is more likely. Who knows how long it'll stay down there, though, probably not for very long, especially as the reality sets in.

Just curious, what are all the Bitforce SC purchasers going to do when they realize its still going to be 6 months before they get their equipment? You realize that BFL can't refund your Bitcoin if they have to sell it for ASIC development, right folks?

We will wait and continue to mine with FPGAs as well as getting BTC income from investments with BTCST & the GLBSE.  Why would anyone want a refund?

My opinion is that if the price goes too high people will sell and if it goes too low people will buy.
That's ma tu'pneth o'copper.

Ahh, predicting the future. As reliable today as ever.  ::)

OP is BS based on nothing.

--> ignore?

OH FFS!

http://fotozup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/facepalm06.jpg

So let me get this straight, OP thinks bubble is burst, and bitcoin is going to 3, but strangely OP is willing to buy at a predicted loss of 1.50 a coin out of the generosity of his own heart ARSE!!!

Kid, I fucking eat cunts like you on the dead cat bounces! This ain't a bubble, it's just a gentle scratch of my balls first thing in the morning.

It's called jock itch - it's a fungal infection (tinea cruris) - you can buy an over the counter solution. Speak to your pharmacist.

IF your going to buy or sell. Putting up your own ask/bids rather than selling/buying into existing trading positions is far more rewarding.

But that would mean I'd lose my number one predictive trading indicator!  :D

You speak like that retard in your avatar. Are you related? (pun intended)

Golden cross anyone?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1127246/Screenshots/80fy.png

I fail to see the pun, but then again I'm just the retard uncle who banged yo mamma, but it's all cool, I got your back brother!   :D

For anyone using it as a currency the price does not matter one damn bit. cent. ;p  aside from any wild flucations...

Not true, purchasing power actually matters, and this is pretty much determined by the price. If the price keeps going down like it did in summer, then people who hold Bitcoins (a currency should be a store of value) are losing purchasing power.

who said anything about holding it?

What do you imagine how people use a currency? They get paid in it, save it for a couple days, weeks, months or years and then spend it. Why would you immediately spend it?

Maybe you mean using Bitcoins as a "payment mechnism" or "value transfer" for fiat money?

It really has nothign to do with what I mean of it. I was replying to the quoteed text, Which to me read very much like groups of people that would be using it to purchase things with. You generally would buy the bitcoins at or clsoe to the time you were making the purchase. Not weeks in advance. shrug.





And your last reply to me was still in disagreement with the quoted text jsut the same as my reply was. We just both had different preceptions of how the authoer of said text was refering to currency. he said dropping would be good. you said it would be bad. And I said it qoulnd't matter whether it was up or down.

Oh course whisperers are back!

There is a possibility of a further correction because my theory is that the BFL orders are actually causing downward pressure. This is because it seems most early ASIC buyers are buying with Bitcoin savings and then we have Bitpay that is selling everything and even announcing that they are selling. On the long run this really doesn't mean anything but for the short term there is some downward pressure.

I'm not sure how much that downward pressure will matter though, there is an underlying upward momentum that should be resuming its course sooner rather than later.

I'm not seeing it.  We're probably in for another multi-month slump, at best.

That's fine ... those make for weekend dip opportunities.  (Never did get a chance to buy back under $5 after the last weekend dip indicator showed green).

I buy small amounts of bitcoins weekly so it evens out the cost (dollar cost averaging) . One thing Ive learnt is not to try and time the market. Time IN the market is more important and if youre just getting bitcoins to buy something it doesnt matter what the price is.

Id vote for the continuation of the uptrend. Better buy quickly, because the downward momentum is already fading.
Short term dip: agreed
Continuation of uptrend: agreed

This thread is beyond silly.

Below $2 is not happening, period. I don't see it getting as far as $5. The 50k BTC from BitPay will slow things down a bit, but only for a while.

I'm tempted to say it won't get below $6, unless BitPay does something drastic (which would be idiotic on their part). Buying directly from BitPay is an option, so we probably won't even see all 50k hit the exchanges.

I don't see how that can be discounted with ASIC mining coming online and the reward drop.  I still think those are going to put major downward pressure on the price.

Why?

Very short-term, yes. However, difficulty retargeting ought to mostly smooth the transition from GPU->FPGA->ASIC. As GPUs start shutting down like CPUs did in 2011, external exchange rates will probably stabilize rather quickly.

Quantum behavior is not dominant now - the Bitcoin economy has long since exceeded a threshold where fluid dynamics are a better description of the system.

I don't know why that would kick it down to $2.

People want ROI. The block reward halving will put greater pressure on ASIC purchasers to sell at higher prices to pay off their initial investment.

Please elaborate proudhon.

Gosh what a noble offer! Take them off the frightened ninnyhammers at a net $1.81 gain to you per coin? That's only a 40% immediate profit on your play, damn straight you want to be the fear-monger. Man up and place a buy order for million or so at $4.5, drive that price, don't screw around playing with it's ass, be a man and do something to it.

Otherwise, its just all so much hot air and FUD.

IMHO there isss BTC in Them thar ASIC hills

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/H_fXUozrj8I/0.jpg


One can make money from mining or from selling equipment to the hardworking miners :D

Not only that, but consider all the investment in these mining rigs. These are different than investments in video cards, which still had some value if bitcoin price sank. These fpga and asic miners would be worthless.

So you can bet any big investors have plans to buy coins when the price gets too low. They aren't using all their money on the miners. They'll also try and buy near price-bottoms to enforce the upward trend, less the long-term miner investments become worthless.

I won't disagree on the $2 part, but $5 and $6 as price floors? Wow. Just wow. That's pretty damn bullish, even arrogantly so, considering we only left 5.xx behind two weeks ago in a large surge up, and we were at 4.xx several times during the past two months. Personally, I'm continually surprised by how bullish various people are; I'm mostly speculating and mining in order to help pay bills. My inclination is to think that despite other claims, the BTC is full of 20-somethings (and even teenagers) talking smack and acting like they know how the world works when it comes to money. There are definitely more serious folks around, but at a ripe old age of 39 I imagine I might be one of the older people on here.

52. Grumpy old man. You're still a pup to me.

20 something here... Im trying to learn the way "real world money" works, but what is more important is I know how I want my money to work.  And btc is the closest by a landslide.

These were my thoughts. Get out of my BRAIN!!!

I'm not saying those prices won't happen, but given the circumstances I don't think we'll see it. There has been a lot of good news in recent months and  a steadily increasing transaction volume as well. People flipping out over ASIC news need to calm down. Orders are piling up and the hardware hasn't even shipped yet. The longer those order books get, the better.

The only thing that would worry me at the moment is news of BFL shipping units in small batches (which hopefully won't happen because ASIC is easily mass produced). Barring that, everyone will get their hardware at roughly the same time and people like me with GPU's will either resort to investing in miners, buying coins, or joining the ASIC bandwagon.

I'll admit I am bullish, but only while transactions keep increasing and growth is apparent. Bitcoin may not catch on, but something like it eventually will. It is far too flexible and niche not to.

Edit: Walls just flipped.

I have to say, I hate this sentiment. If not Bitcoin, what then? Something government controlled?

If Bitcoin fails with its popularity and its strong community I doubt anything better is going to rise from its ashes.

Good call..

Proof-of-stake.

Also, when quantum computing becomes a commercial reality, that will change the Bitcoin-game quite a bit.

By the way, did you know that if you simply look inside a quantum computer, it crashes?

Honestly, I cannot say what would follow in the ashes of Bitcoin. We're talking at least another decade (probably 2) before we can really judge whether or not Bitcoin succeeded.  During that time there will be lots of technical innovations that I could not even dream of.

Bitcoin is a technical revolution, a beautiful marriage of cryptography, p2p networking, and mathematics. That doesn't mean it cannot be improved. I couldn't have told you 20 years ago the technology televisions would use today, but I could have theorized that it would be an improvement upon its' predecessors.

It depends how/why it fails.

Absolutely not! Bitcoin is far, FAR from static and is being improved all the time.

I would not follow in the ashes of Bitcoin either. Everything we want is here already. Freedom!

open source, the first cryptocurrency
bitcoin!

aye, "spooky state" is a friggin amazing thing...  edit; of course I'm amazed by everything that I don't understand very well. which is, well, a lot of things.

*perma amazed face*

ugh... the "quantum computing" thread got out again.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3008.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3008.0)

tl:dr

quantum computing is no threat to bitcoin.

In Bitcoin's current state, yes, it absolutely is.

Give it 10-20 years.

BTW, if you think that the current publicity on quantum computing is 'up-to-date,' you're kidding yourself.  How do I know this?  Simple.  If I (or you) was in a position of ultimate authority, would I restrict the amount of information that actually reaches the public regarding technological advances?  Fuck yes I would.

tl;dr

Quantum computing is far more advanced than any publication will lead you to believe.

Ok, care to share your source?

I laughed out loud.

Common sense.  Like I said, if I was at the top, I would restrict all kinds of information from being leaked.  Its natural that others would do the same.

"Hey!  We invented a device the size of a cubic foot that literally contains and can compute an infinite amount of information!"  (And, btw, a single qubit can, in fact, store an infinite amount of information, but some infinities are larger than other infinities)  "Here everybody!  Here's how to build one!"

Or

"Hm...why don't we just keep this little secret to ourselves...and profit like f*cking crazy and gain a competitive edge over every country in the world while they all scramble to figure this out on their own."  Either that, or they know we'd all kill ourselves if we had access to that kind of technology.

Gee, I wonder which is more likely.

Seriously, if you think that you can look up the most advanced technology through a Google search, or hear it from a buddy with a PhD, you must be a fool.

To me this just means someone should start an altchain that switches ECDSA and SHA-2 for algorithms that are secure in the face of QC, so that if someone suddenly unveils a quantum computer, there's an alternative already lined up and ready.

Exactly; that's why I've never publicised my invention of the Quantum Gravititic Hypercomputer.  I can break the entire blockchain five times over before breakfast; predict the lottery numbers for every lottery around the world before 11 then sit outside in the sunshine until the exact second when my computer predicted the rain would start.

Of course, I haven't made use of any of these abilities; because then the world would realise what I'd created.

---

You do realise how nutty you sound?  Your evidence of the existence of working quantum computers is that that there is no evidence of working quantum computers?

Personally, I'll believe it when I see a fuzzy photograph or shaky video footage. Anything less is just fantasy talk. :D

Hey, don't knock that line of reasoning, it worked really well for the Inquisition for a couple centuries  ;D

That's not how it actually works. It might be like this with military implementations or other technologies that can be "gathered" in a more final state. But the more fundamental parts of research are beyond what government control is capable of. Such things stem from a scientific community that is largely international and, quite frankly, beyond the organizational capabilities of governments.

Last quantum storage I saw lived a fraction of a second in a vacuum chamber inside of some laser interference pattern. It's not ready for usage, there is no known path to get it ready for usage, and if there were such a thing it would be extremely hard to conceal, since one would have to gather up people with expertise in the topic without anyone noticing.

If, against all odds, someone figures out any decent-sized implementation of Shor's Algorithm any time soon, assume one hell of a head-start warning.

Not all QC is alike. The slowest type wouldn't effect us much at all, the best type would make the concept of any type of currency irrelevant.

I predict that the law of accelerating returns will continue as normal, resulting in some form of QC guarenteed fairly soon, but gradually and incrementally as to be not all that exciting, presumably this is factored into Bitcoin development already.

Bingo.


No, I think it's nutty to assume the opposite.  And by the way, your assumption that "there is no evidence of working quantum computers" is dead wrong since scientists have already laid claim to the existence of working quantum computers the size of a handful of qubits, though they claim they aren't very useful in their current state and can only use them to solve extremely basic and not very useful problems.  I'm simply giving three plausible scenarios (there are others, of course) and one of them is likely true:

1)  There are scientists that have built rudimentary quantum computers, but they don't know of others who have built vastly more complex ones.
OR
2)  There are scientists that have built extremely complex quantum computers, but they are minimizing their results to the public.
OR
3)  There are scientists that have built rudimentary quantum computers, are aware that others have built vastly more complex ones and are trying to replicate this complexity, but are restricting this information to the public.


You and others are taking the position that it sounds nutty based on the arrogant assumption that you think you're somehow privileged enough as another human being to know exactly what's going on.  I'd bet you're also a person who thinks it's "nutty" for people to think that extraterrestrials exist because you/we haven't seen them despite clear evidence of a hierarchy of life and intelligence, and to assume that that hierarchy stops at planet Earth is one of the dumbest, most egocentric conclusions a person can reach.  It's hardly different than the assumption proven false long ago that the sun revolves around the Earth.

Please work on your analogies, they are terrible. A leap of scientist are working on qc to scientists have secretly made a super advanced and working qc is NOT the same as life on earth so there may be life out there somewhere.

A better analogy would have been: " I'd bet you're also a person who thinks it's "nutty" for people to think that extraterrestrials abduct people and impregnate them with alien hybrids because you/we haven't seen them"

And yes, I would think those people are nutty.

Having worked for Nasa/Boeing for a number of years at a base that had a large number of research projects going on. I can vouch for The Joint's analogy. I can think of very little research that was taking place there, at the time, that was published in any sort of peer journal or any place else it would be known by the public or other researchers. As 90% or more of it was either confidential company property or government owned. And no I'm not privy to any secrets so don't ask..

cheers

The only way bitcoins will drop to $3 is if MtGox dies in a spectacular fashion. Even selling bitcoins when they were $30 was humorously short-sighted (although quite profitable if you were smart enough to buy them back at the bottom).

Here's my thread about my infographic regarding why I think the sky is the limit on bitcoin prices (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90116.0):

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7319/028trillions.png (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90116.0)

it looks like they are all closing in to kick bitcoins ass.  :o

More like Bitcoin is a young, hungry black hole drawing all of their energy away.

The burden of proof is traditionally on the asserter.

You assert that quantum computers of immense power exist; and yet your proof of that is that "well, if people had them, they wouldn't tell us".

It is not I that is arrogantly specifying exactly what is going on in secret around the world; it is you.

I think it's nutty, because your logic could be followed for literally anything.  I see no evidence that matter teleportation is a practical technology -- by your logic, it therefore exists and is simply being kept from use.


Well you've certainly put a lot of words in my mouth there with that giant straw man.

I won't bother responding to that, because it's so wildly away from the point under discussion.

Logic'd :D

well said. I wanted to retort something similar but its hard to do on my phone.

What good is logic when its more fun to just believe in something?

Lol you guys are idiots.

First, a straw-man does not make an argument invalid or implausible.  It just doesn't make it sound.  I think your logic needs a bit of ship-shaping since claiming a straw-man does nothing to defeat the assertion.

Second, I think you missed the post by the ex-NASA/Boeing employee who asserted that there are, in fact, classified projects going on all the time that don't make it to peer-reviewed journals or researchers for a number of reasons.

Third, burden of proof?  Are you kidding me?  Speak for yourselves.  You have two choices in this scenario: 
1)  Make a counter assertion, i.e. that I am wrong, and place the burden of proof equally upon yourselves (good luck with that one, by the way)
or
2) Say "I don't know" in which case you are allowing my assertion plausibility.

Don't give me lectures on logic.

If you don't want logic lectures, debate properly. "Burden of proof" is a valid requirement. Do I really need to give an example?
"There's a monster under my bed which poops cold fusion"

If you're not clever enough to tell the difference between a belief and an assertion of absolute fact, you're not clever enough to be lecturing me on logic.

I'm fully expecting some dumb reply about how hypotheticals are logical fallacies, too.   ::)

This is a discussion in which the Devil's Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probatio_diabolica) applies. Obviously, we can't peer inside the labs of people doing NDA or classified research, so we can't say for certain that something is not happening there. Nor can the inability to falsify what goes on in those labs serve as an argument for any particular thing X existing there.

So let's look at it like this: generally speaking, how far ahead are those labs, compared with the state of the art known to published science? And what's the known state of the art for quantum computers?

I'm not familiar with the former, but the latter is easy to look up, and it seems to be:
1) a project by four universities that managed to build a 2-qubit computer in laboratory conditions, and
2) a 128-qubit device made by a private company which can only do discrete optimization (and as such is not a quantum computer per se).

In 10-20 years? Maybe we'll see something that cracks discrete logarithm cryptography in twain. Is it a risk to Bitcoin? Well... I'm not sure. Grover's algorithm weakens SHA-2 by roughly half its bits, so one can probably expect the number of target bits to double as soon as Grover makes it into the wild. But it'll still count as proof-of-work, so that's not actually a problem. The real problem is ECDSA being murdered Shor's algorithm, which means that Bitcoin needs to have some kind of solution lined up (support for Lamport signatures, for instance) well before they hit market. Note that this wouldn't require a new blockchain or split the one we have; at most, it'd be a BIP16-type effort where people upgrade to support a new transaction type.

I want to chime in here for the layman :D

Technology will be developed and held as a close guarded secret one way or another.

Take apple's approach to secrecy for example, in Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs.

He describes Ive's design studio as "shielded by tinted windows and a heavy clad, locked door.

"Just inside is a glass-booth reception desk where two assistants guard access. Even the most high-level Apple employees are not allowed in without "special permission." In a wonderful bit of pot-kettle-black criticism, other Apple employees describe Ive's design team as "secretive". When you're accused of secrecy by people who work for the most secretive company in the world, you must be pretty good at keeping secrets."

And thats just for what may end up being a public Retail product.

If you are responsible for a National and Global security, technology implimentations and its present usable sate may be and should be shrowded in secrecy. OR ELSE!

Take for example one way to safeguard votes is to limit access to them when they're being transferred from precincts to central polling stations where they're tallied.

This is just what the Swiss are looking into. "The nation is on the cutting edge of research into quantum cryptography. But unlike traditional cryptology methods -- encoding and decoding information or messages -- quantum cryptology depends on physics, not mathematics."

You can read more here http://swissquantum.idquantique.com/?-Quantum-Cryptography- (http://swissquantum.idquantique.com/?-Quantum-Cryptography-)

Are you implying that you have asserted an absolute fact when you said that quantum computing with abilities well beyond the public's knowledge is already being used? If not, what are you saying?

I'm saying the assertion I made is what I believe, and that's why I believe that you're a fool who's wasting his time trying to 'logically' disassemble my belief with your belief (i.e. that my assertion is false). 

Although, I also think you're a fool for not believing in the realistic plausibility of my belief which would include any of the 3 scenarios I outlined in the previous page of this thread.

That makes more sense. So you believe that there is underground quantum computing. Cool. I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as do millions, if not thousands, of other devout followers. http://www.venganza.org/

I'm going to ignore your beliefs and every belief-based argument if you don't mind.

As for your "plausible scenarios," why do you think they are plausible? That is what needs support.

It is now safe to say that his perspective is based on his belief that not everything related with quantum computing discoveries is made public. However given historic track records with other technologies being held back from public consumption makes it plausible even if you choose to ignore it. Even with the attempt to claim of fallacy by ambiguity, does not make it an unwise or foolish belief.

Its also true that I hope the Bitcoin project will gain in relevance in today`s world. My perspective, my belief that it is an alternative to gold and other forums of exchange, and solves issues we faced today using the traditional methods. Is but that my belief-based perspective.

On a side note I will use an example of fallacy of relevance.

Say for instance I think July 7 CERN will make it official or at least let us know when they plan to make it official. That the The Higgs boson has likely been found already. It does not matter what raw data I may have had access to. The point is its still my belief-based perspective. If I wish to extend that for others to make their own belief-based assessments, then that is up to me.

However time will tell.

You're right, though, computers are only a tool, and weather those advanced tools are available in use today is irrelevant.

edit: unless they come online and you are holding onto a dozen of BFL ASIC`s bad boy`s

Why is your belief plausible? I.e. that there is not technology more advanced than what is searchable in Google and accessible in peer-reviewed journals?

Now, maybe you'd concede to the general term 'technology' rather than the specific term 'quantum computing.  Maybe you think, "Well, maybe there's some other kind of technological advances that are out there that I haven't heard about yet, but not in the field quantum computing.  I've heard about quantum-computing and I can look it up, so that must mean that's all the information out there."  But, given that quantum computing does exist in the public knowledge base in rudimentary form, then my assertion isn't so far-fetched after all.  We know quantum computing exists.  Don't give me the flying spaghetti monster crap.

It's honestly shocking to me that someone like you would assume that the assertion I am making is something akin to the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "giant teacup" or any other ridiculous analogy.  I believe in extraterrestrials, I believe in intergalactic civilizations, I believe in teleportation (which has also been demonstrated by scientists at the atomic level, and that was years ago), I believe in cold fusion, I believe in technologies that would solve the entire energy crisis the world is currently facing, I believe in all kinds of shit.  Do I have proof of it?  No.  Does that make me a "nut?"  No.

What I do have knowledge of, however, is that mankind has consistently and repeatedly made faulty and arrogant assumptions about their presumed level of knowledge for thousands of years.  And then someone like you comes along and thinks, "Wow, this guy's a nutcase.  He actually believes there's shit out there that I, a powerful Internet user, don't know about."  Get real dude.  That attitude has been the source of the humiliation of humanity for millenniums.  So, maybe it's not that shocking that you're spitting the same, familiar arrogance.  Don't forget, a lot of people in Korea think their leader is a fucking deity.  Why do they think that?  Multiplied propaganda.  Think for yourself, not what you're told or what you read.

My brother told me a story about how his friend went onto Wikipedia one day and made up a town in Kansas, proceeding to write a history about this imaginary town and its people.  He maintained his entry for over a year, and then one day, he went to take it down from the website.

To his surprise, after he took it down, someone put it back up!  He tried to take it down again, but to no avail.  People kept believing the town actually existed, so much so that they adamantly scrutinized my brother's friend when he tried to tell them that he was the one that had put up the entry, and that he had fabricated the entire thing.

This only shows the power of what's posted on the Internet.  While the story about the imaginary town in Kansas is dissimilar to quantum computing in the sense that we know quantum computing exists, the point is that people are apt to believe what they can find on the Internet or in a published source.  Multiplied propaganda is a very powerful thing.  The fact that you can look up quantum computing and receive a buttload of Internet searches leads to confirmation bias.  "Yep, these all say pretty much the same thing.  That must be all there is out there."  But the mentality is similar to those who believe in the imaginary Kansas town, and are unwilling to consider alternative possibilities.  The thought didn't even occur to them that they might not be getting the whole picture.

I don't believe that. I also don't believe in its opposite. Evidence is necessary.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm not assuming that. The reference to the flying spaghetti monster is my justification for ignoring entirely unsubstantiated beliefs. Note that in that previous sentence, I'm not trying to imply that your belief is entirely unsubstantiated.

This is a bit off on a tangent... I'm just trying to assess the logic behind your statements. I never said "nutcase" in this thread, nor did I refer to myself as a "powerful Internet user." Be careful how you use those quotation marks.

As they say in Kansas, "cool story bro"

I am honestly only trying to look at the logic behind your beliefs.

Just fyi, you can't effectively tell someone's tone of voice from written text. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/jobs/07pre.html

I'm having a blast watching you guys debate this. But you're making my brain hurt trying to follow all of your advanced articulations. >.<

Is the base argument that it is possible for a quantum computer to crack sha-2 or that one could mine extremely fast? Or is it just whether one could even exist that could do that within a few years?


After those arguments arn't we still left with just what entity would even bother pointing one at bitcoin? Seems they would use it for military calculations, financial calcs, weather calcs, etc first.


Someone that has a better memory than I would have to answer this. Someone, maybe Andreson or other person more familiar with just how much calc is needed to crack sha-2 had said something along the lines of Qubit computing being like 10 years off from being able to crack sha-2, using the standard pregression of computing power? i.e., moore's law.

My personal belief is that there exist a Quantum computer right now that could theoreticly break sha-2. Just how quickly I do not know, maybe 6 months a year. Not feasible to use against sha digesting yet. I do not believe however that such a machine would be in a position to be used for anything other than some very predetermined set of uses.

side note; on the technology and secrets thing, SR 71 Blackbird..... First 2 paragraph's after the intro; http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-030-DFRC.html

See, that's your belief. While it's probable that there exists technology more advanced than what the general public knows about, this does not prove the existence of a powerful quantum computer, nor does it prove the existence of a human teleportation device or a perfect weather predictor (that last one is probably impossible due to the butterfly effect/chaos + Heisenberg uncertainty principle.)

aye, that's why I stated it as, "my personal belief."

OT a bit from present debate; Did you read about that research group that teleported the photon? That was nuts, and more recently a Chinese group has teleported multiple entangled photons over 60km... Maybe not 'beam me up' worthy but it will sure put a new 'spin' on moving information securely. The biggest benefit to quantum communications is spooky state. That's in very basic sense where if you observe the state of a quantum system, you change the state of that system merely by observing it. crazy shit.

Dude, nobody's saying anything about proof.  I never said anything about proof, and I flat out denied that I was asserting a fact of any kind.  One post you're talking about plausibility of belief, then you're talking about proof, then plausibility of belief, then proof.  Don't ask me why my beliefs are plausible, and then when I tell you why they're plausible, come at me with "it's not proof!"

I said it's a belief, so I'm going to assume that that's what you're still focused on.  Your contention in your last post to me is that you don't believe my assertion, nor do you believe it's opposite.

You're essentially saying "Maybe, maybe not," and that you need evidence before you can make an informed decision about belief.

By your very failure to make a decision to believe or not believe,you are allowing my belief plausibility in which case I don't even need to answer.

I think you should look at what you're saying, and not what I'm saying, if you really want to understand why my belief is plausible.  You've admitted it and don't even know it.

Was the SR-71 able to pursue its mission of being a spy craft to keep tabs on every inch of the planet, or just select areas?

Will a quantum computer today be able to crack every existing key in the blockchain, or just a targeted subset?

You've got me on both questions, m8.

1. My knowledge of the SR 71 is pretty limited after just how long they were able to keep this thing secret.

2. I don't know the math invloved any where near close enough to be able to answer this.  edit; in case someone does let's hypothetically assume there existed a 248 Qubit Quantum computer.




edit; and OT to OP  6.41 and climbing.  :-*

Here's what I know about quantum computing.  Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Whereas in classical computing you start from the ground up and essentially try to add more bit processors to compute information faster, in quantum computing you're essentially starting with the sum of all information and trying to devise a method to find the specific information you're looking for.  In other words, classical computing is like starting with questions and trying to find the answers; quantum computing is like starting with ALL answers and trying to find the right question or set of questions which will give you the specific answer you're looking for.

A quantum computer is like starting with a library containing all books that have ever been written and will ever be written.  A single qubit can contain an infinite amount of information.   This in and of itself doesn't make for a useful library.  How do you know where to find the book you're looking for?  Moreover, when you begin to look (thus, you are trying to make calculated observations to find the book you want), the calculation you make on one piece of observed information changes the configuration of all the other information due to entanglement.  In a way, I think of it as almost like a giant, entangled rubix cube.  I would presume that adding more and more cubits allows you to process these calculated observations faster and allow you to retrieve the information you're looking for more quickly.

So, my guess is that a quantum computer with a single qubit could theoretically crack every key in the blockchain, but it would just take longer than if you had multiple qubits, and the more qubits you have, the faster it could be done.

Well, I believe that our quantum computing capabilities are far in advance of what is being published.

Unfortunately, its being used to fend off the pan-dimensional alien beings from the planet "Derp" so can not be levied against bitcoin, or anything else.

I believe this. Don't try to argue against it with your belief

edit: and just for good measure...

http://api.ning.com/files/c3ouOvTy210lEqDNv59ihka5t5BNz7myLJBECkYaiut0TacPr0PHtNnUKjSvZHVYOt16dCNCi5nvtOiv51pvuF0GB35E1FRa/flyingspaghettimonster.jpg

HAHA. Well, derp u too. ;p

You got me.  No really.  You did. 

So Bitcoin isn't $3 yet.

Nope.  The Remulaks bought some with their intergalactic morzorks.

oh, good

There's no known quantum algorithm that makes breaking SHA-2 non-exponential in the digest size. Grover's algorithm only gives bits/2 complexity for preimage attacks, and bits/3 complexity for collision attacks.

Like I said before, the danger isn't to the hash algorithm. It's to the transaction algorithm. And you only need to break one private key to get all the coins at a particular address.

I'm reasonably certain that this is incorrect, and that, more specifically, to find a 256-bit solution you need a 256-qubit quantum computer.

Very well could be.

Quite so; argumentum ad logicam is the fallacious argument that because a conclusion is the end of a chain of bad logic that makes it wrong.  Of course it doesn't.  I might say "apples fall from trees because fairies cut their stalks". Apples definitely do fall from trees.  That doesn't mean fairies cut them down though (to conclude so would be to commit another logic error, affirmation of the consequent, and I already know you're familiar with that one... "if QC then No Evidence; No Evidence therefore QC").

However, what we're arguing about here is whether your logic is fallacious or not.  Your straw man was to insert a load of conclusions about my opinion on extraterrestrials into my mouth then demolish (using your own special brand of logic) what you had inserted.  That is the textbook definition of a straw man.  A straw man is proof of nothing, and is without doubt a fallacious argument.  Hence why I chose to not enter into debate with you about things I did not say.

None of that changes the fact that you resorted to use of a straw man to protect your wibble about advanced quantum computers being real.


Yes; I can quite see that is a waste of time.  However, it amuses me, and perhaps it amuses some others reading.


Seriously?  Your defence now is that you weren't debating whether your belief was true or not; you were debating whether it's true that you hold it.  Let me save you the trouble: I'm quite sure you believe your own beliefs.  There is no externally observable source that any of us can use to prove or disprove what thoughts are in your head, so I am happy to believe your evidence in that respect.

You seem to have shifted your ground though; the debate was not "does the joint believe advanced quantum computers are real?", the debate was "are advanced quantum computers real?".  Here's the evidence for that being exactly what the debate was:


You chose to slap down Hexadecibal with your superior knowledge of what quantum computers are doing in secret.

Now you're telling us that what you were actually doing was parading your beliefs, not knowledge.  You have no knowledge of any advanced quantum computer; you have not designed one, you have not seen one; you have not heard reports of one; you can't even point to some evidence of a problem that one might have solved, revealing itself to us.  You offer "belief" as your justification for condescendingly telling Hexadecibal how deluded he was.  Why does your belief that they exist trump his/our belief that they don't?  Your belief is better than his, right?

That is simply religious bigotry.

Oh... sorry, I "believe" that it's religious bigotry.  Using your own logic then, my position is unimpeachable, so I expect nothing but silence from you in response save you be branded a hypocrite (he says expecting no such thing).

It's like the Hitch is back from the dead, I tell you!

I for one am amused.

Oh, and the joint could use a little Karl Popper in hi free time.

Rofl. That is all. Carry on.

rock on. *runs off to read http://qbnets.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/grovers-algorithm-for-dummies/




edit; oh OP, $6.49

Wow, this is a slow decline. We are up more than 10% at the moment. I'm no math whiz, how long will it take to get to $3 at 10% growth?

Don't mock the flawless speculation of the expert speculators on the speculation board.  They have charts with MS Paint lines drawn on them to back them up.

True, no logic could stand up to an infographic. 

The funny thing is that that there is no such thing as a financial expert, IMO. Even the very best of the best on Wall St. just barely do better than random chance. This has been studied extensively.  Personally I have made most of my real money in the stock market betting against the common wisdom and going with my gut + fundamentals. Using that I liquidated just before the tech bubble crash and again just before the current global collapse.
 I thank Laurie Anderson. I saw her in concert one night in '08 and a "sell" light went off in my head. Here is the song that did it, enjoy:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvhfSH9CbCw   

She is awesome!

Anything is possible in the world of quantum physics... even growing during a steady decline  ;D

File me among the amused. For my part, I've studied computer science and cryptography, and while quantum computing could radically alter the landscape of computers and encryption algorithms, I file it in the same category as FTL (Faster Than Light) travel: pure science fiction, at least for now. I figure if someone figures out how to make a true quantum computer, they'll probably also be the ones to create an FTL drive. Even better "proof" that quantum computing is nowhere near being ready for actual use: Dan Brown wrote about it in his (horrible) techno-thriller Digital Fortress. The NSA already has a giant supercomputer that uses superconducting quantum computing chips to crack all encryption codes everywhere!

I don't think we can really disagree with your sentiments. And doens't the NSA just wish that were true. But, let's reel in the FTL travel a bit to something more achievable.
FTL communications. As corny as this may sound the best place I know of to read up on the conept of FTL communications is from EVEonline.com  for the space based mmo video game.

 Very much sci-fi but an intriguing idea none the less; "The roots of the solution lay in an ancient paradox, often called the EPR paradox, the name shrouded in mystery. The EPR paradox is famous for contradicting quantum physics in some very important ways. Specifically it shows another old physic theory, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, to be untrue. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, believed to be named after a place or a person, affirms that the exact state of quantum particle cannot be determined with full accuracy, no matter how refined the measurement equipment is. The classical example being the measurement of the velocity and position of a free particle: to be able to measure the position of a particle you must be able to 'see' it. This means that you have to illuminate it at least with one photon. But the collision between the photon and the particle changes the velocity of the particle, thus making it impossible to determine what the velocity was before the position was measured."
http://community.eveonline.com/background/communication/
http://community.eveonline.com/background/communication/comm_02.asp

edit; some real literature on EPR paradox - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/

edit; @ OP - $6.55

Link plz?

Not enough citations, people with experience please chime in. According to that no bubble may exist, could just be an uptrend.

Now, before the quantum discussion goes out of hand.


I guess I'll give it a try. It's really not quite possible to explain quantum mechanics with classical analogies though, so just accept that reality is... different with QM. For example, working on a superposition of all return values of a function, what you call "ALL answers", is not the same as working on all return values of a classical function. You don't actually get all of them, they're just... partially there, for the lack of a better expression.

The information contained in a qubit is infinite because its state space is, for all we know, infinitely large. However, you cannot extract more than one bit of information when you read a qubit to get an actual answer! Also, reading a qubit destroys its state! So the trick lies in transformations done on the information in the system's quantum mechanical state space, before you read out the answer.

In fact, it is very complicated and counter-intuitive to write algorithms for quantum computation devices. For all I know, we know about three useful algorithms. Granted, two of them are real breakthroughs: you can search an item in an unsorted list in sqrt(N) complexity (yes, this should sound absolutely impossible if you think about it) and decompose numbers into their prime factors in polynomial complexity! The latter is called Shor's Algorithm.

With one qubit alone, you can do almost nothing. If you have one unitary transform on it, you get a great random bit generator, which can come in handy, but is absolutely useless to break Bitcoin. To actually break Bitcoin, you need Shor's Algorithm, and that means you need to operate on qubit-strings large enough to perform calculations with Bitcoin's keys! I don't know the exact requirements, but it's really really really far off from where we stand. Remember people managed something like 4 qubits and factoring 15 or something.

Here's how a group did that: http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1398 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1398)

Note that this is nowhere near what a normal person imagines as a computer. We're talking enormous absurd setups creating interference patterns in cold vacuum chambers. To factor the number 15. Yes, it's 3*5, duh, and this implementation scales horribly.

It's really interesting to think about quantum computation, but don't panic too much about it. If someone shouts "heureka" and cracks Bitcoin-size keys, it might as well be a mathematician or whoever found something everyone else overlooked. If anything, be afraid of C++, which is a sloppy language in terms of security yet used for the main Bitcoin client. A simple bug in a compiler might turn out as fatal as one in the Bitcoin source, and I hope you remember how often Bitcoin already had dangerous problems of the kind. Billions of Bitcoins, baby! Been there, done that.

TL;DR: DON'T PANIC!

Nonono, panic, and sell your bitcoins to me for higher than what I predict them to fall to!

So long as we're throwing wild personal opinions around, here is my own. I don't believe that the military or government has any computer technology that is significantly more advanced than what we are seeing in known academic research laboratories and private research programs.  Even if they wera able to create a super-quantum computer, the advantage would be so short lived against the rest of the world following behind, I don't think it would even make sense from a budgetary and strategic point of view. I remember in the 90's there was a lot of speculation about the kind of incredible computer technology that the government and military must have had, because we were coming from a time when the highest technology traditionally came from government and military programs. That's not really true anymore, and it wasn't really true then either. As it turns out, the government did not have any computer technology that was superior to technology held by any number of academic and private institutions and I don't think this has changed, especially in these economic times. I think this idea is no different than the formerly widely held belief that the american military is so advanced and powerful that they would certainly walk all over any technologically inferior country like say, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan with no trouble whatsoever. It's all smoke and mirrors, anyone remember the Aurora aircaft? Off the top of my head the only project I can think of that succeeded in creating a super technology well ahead of the curve, was the Manhatten project, but even that supremacy was very short lived. Even the internet, their greatest and most successful endeavor, did not experience its renaissance until it was opened to public and private institutions. They simply cannot compete on their own aginst that open market, not anymore.

I was in the Army 2003-2007. Saw a lot of things. Nothing of which made me think our (my) government was all powerful technology wise, when the insurgence were taking out our armored assets with homemade explosives.

Friend of mine was military intelligence with top secrete clearance. While he did not divulge anything to me (rightly so) he did say the world was a lot more mundane than what people would like to believe...

Fail.

Im happy to report I have bought recently 500 btc so far from wise bitcoiners at $4.50 USD :)
Im still happy to bail anyone else out at the quoted price of $4.50 as the price approaches $5. 

Heyyy, I thought you said it was supposed to be approaching $3?  I can't pull back my shorts so I can catch your new $5...  I is gonna be broke now?

Tits or GTFO!

And in a related development Idi Amin is still dead.  ^^+1, but just jump to the GTFO part.

you got screwed! you could have bought at $3

mem congrats to that expert level troll thread.

you're late. you missed the qubit derailer EPR detanglement system discussion.

Oo, the army eh?

By the way, there's like 3 dozen clearances above top secret.

I know because I know someone that had a clearance 14 levels above top secret.

What I got until now... price didn't reach $3 because everyone measured it's state and then changed upwards. I got it right?

He got out of government work about a decade ago.  He said he wouldn't tell me anything that he knew was supposed to be kept confidential because he knew I would likely tell someone sooner or later.  But he did say that it was because of the things he couldn't tell me that he got out of government work.

Btw, I'm sorry about your buddy, the driver  :(

Glad to hear!

The truth right there. There is no secret society or aliens controlling everything, it's just us brothers and sisters.

That's what they would like you to believe ... government / military technology is MUCH more advanced than civilian tech.

They have quantum computers by now already for like 10 years I would speculate.

Nice troll thread BTW.

And our Mothers - I think it's the Mothers who control everything. Why won't she leave me alone? I'm 42!

Surely you are forgetting something http://theoatmeal.com/comics/pigs (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/pigs)

Looks like the joint has someone else smoking his product that creates a "sci-fi is real TODAY" mindset. When Intel starts releasing quantum processors, that's when the government will have had quantum computers for a few years. Right now, no one is even close to real-world QC "chips".

 ::)

::) to you as well. As far as I'm concerned, you're both "conspiracy nuts". Do you speculate that the moon landings didn't really happen as well? I speculate that no one is anywhere near creating a large scale, practical quantum computer. At best, I'd say they're at the level of the pre-ENIAC computers. Another 10 years, maybe we'll have the quantum computing equivalent of ENIAC (e.g. you have to hand program it for each calculation, it will be massive in size, requiring cooling and power that are insane, and various portions of the device frequently fail and need to be replaced/fixed). In fifty years, when I'm a freaking old man, perhaps I'll be reminiscing about how "back when I was young, we had 256-bit encryption and thought it wouldn't get cracked in our lifetime!"

you're a sci-fi hater. :'(

I think what everyone is missing here is that Flash Gordon was the savior of the universe.

Call me a 'conspiracy nut' if you will.  But, I think the difference between me and a typical conspiracy nut is that although I believe in what you might call 'nutty' stuff, those things truly don't bother me, nor do they give me a negative perspective on the world, nor am I easily influenced by the opinions of others.  E.g. "OMG!  A YouTube video on aliens!  This means it must be true!"   I form my own assumptions, thanks.   I'd like to remind you that the only reason that you believe in quantum computing is because you've read or heard about it, not because you actually understand exactly how it works, and not because you've ever seen one.  Great evidence -- word of mouth.  "OMG a 128 qubit quantum computer!  That means it must be the most powerful quantum computer in existence!  They even said so!"  Give me a break.  You're guessing as much as I am.

As far as the moon goes, I believe we went there.  But, I do find it highly 'interesting' that we haven't been back there since.  

Here's something else that's 'nutty' that I believe in.  I believe in evolution, but I do not believe humans evolved from primates.  Humans appear to be a unique case that defies the logic of evolutionary theory.  Call me 'stupid' or 'retarded' or 'nutty.'  I truly don't give a shit.

So, by all means, call me a nut.  See if I care.  I think you're closed-minded and making more nutty assumptions than I am.  Do you care?  No?  I guess we're at an impasse then.  I just find it quite ironic that the stranger we find reality to be, the more likely most people are to assume that they know it all.

Shut up before I take you all to noodle , do you wanna know the reality of this shit , were going to noodle.  Dumbfucks.  Enjoy your noodle, whatever the fuck she says.
Be ready for your dna change.  Three days , three nights complete darkness.

P{eive $ea Ke4

you wana tickle my noodle  ;)

No but I did want to help derail the thread further... because were all going to die , the proof is right on youtube.

please post direct link to youtube's proof that were all going to die!

Dude its viral , I looked at  it and died instantaneously now
im stuck in this fucking hell.  I cant let you see it.  everyone around me is retarded
and i cant stand it.  you dont want to come here. Its wierd.  Everyone is evil and lies.
The governments are corrupt .  Ron paul is now gay.  Lives in a mansion with all the
gold from the federal reserve.  He took it all and is paying for male strippers.  Dammit.

Shit ive been awake since June 25, 2012, 12:21:18 AM.  waiting for $3. 

Thats proof im in hell.  Ok .

3 days no sleep!

shit dude, I've been down this road, YOU MUST buy a lot of alcohol, drink it all up and crash for at least 8 hours

What the hell OP! Now people arn't even selling into my $5 short.

@our military brothers who believe we always roll out the best tech the military has to offer for every unit in the field. two words; Battery Technology

make it easy for us... Battery Technology ???


I think ALOT of people will get in this situation on our way up to 8$
just buy back now

Let me put it this way, what's more likely:

The USA government has quantum computers and are breaking any mainstream encryption whenever they feel like it. Meanwhile, no other country has come close (because we rock here in the US and are WAY better at this stuff -- never mind that DES was based off a dumbed-down Lucifer cipher that was mostly created in South Africa by IBM employees, IIRC). And the only people who have done anything with quantum computing and published something about it are doing stuff like factoring 15 into 3 * 5. So the US gov't is basically several orders of magnitude ahead of anyone else. Also, quantum computing would require some seriously advanced manufacturing and other technology, and most of the manufacturing is no longer even done in the US (e.g. cars, motors, injection molded plastic, motherboards, etc. are nearly all done somewhere else where it's cheaper, to the point where the US basically has no real ability to do the necessary work on their own). There are a ton of other things that would also have to be in place for a real QC to exist, but let's just stop for now.

OR: no one is anywhere near having created a fully functional quantum computer that can be used for actual work like cracking 256-bit, 128-bit, 2048-bit, etc. encryption. Everything being done right now is at a very theoretical level, with a few attempts at practical applications that haven't really been too useful so far.

I do not say that it's absolutely impossible for a super secret quantum computer to exist somewhere that is so classified that the only people that know about it have said nothing (and of course none of the espionage groups from other countries know about it). However, I do think that such a scenario is HIGHLY unlikely. You would have thousands (or more) people working on the creation of this secret quantum computer, or at least the various parts of it, and either everything is so compartmentalized that only a very select few know about the real purpose of the design, or everyone is being very good about not talking. The Manhattan Project was the biggest "secrete success" of the US in many ways, and yet the Soviets and most other advanced nations basically had everything they needed to know within a few years. Quantum computing has the potential to be bigger than the Manhattan Project.

It's just like the moon landings. For those to have been faked is technically possible, but the number of people involved that would have to have kept their mouths shut is ludicrous. Of course, I've also got a brother who works in the aerospace industry who told me that everything he knows/does in that area suggests that the moon landings were indeed real. Oh, and there are reflectors set up on the moon that scientists aim lasers at to test distance and some other stuff. So why haven't we gone back? Because it turns out the moon is a pretty darn boring place. The dirt on the surface is largely worthless, and the cost to get to the moon is prohibitive. I think we'll eventually go to the moon again, but not for a while yet. A manned voyage to Mars would be much more interesting, IMO.

This is just a shot in the dark, but I think he's inferring the fact that the only thing stopping us from deploying functional power-armored infantry is the lack of a suitable power source.

I've seen the tech demo'd on TED talks. Really impressive stuff...

But then, he may be referring to something completely different...

edit: lasers?... pew pew

Nice false dichotomy.

Also, with regards to the moon and it being a "pretty darn boring place," let me ask you this.  Have you actually seen pictures of the moon?  Like, you know, in color?  With all the blues, greens, browns, and earthy tones?  The moon is simply not a boring, flat, pale-gray sphere.  There's a little phenomenon called 'whitewashing' that happens when the sun shines on the moon.  Photographers and astronomers have known about this for a long time.  The moon is immensely colorful with chasms and mountains many miles deep/high.  And shit, if the cost to get to the friggin' moon is prohibitive, then what do you call the cost to get to Mars?

No need any links, just look at the history. Everyone who lived before us - died. So im pretty sure we all gonna die also. :P

we are immortal beings having an experience in a body and our souls survive the death of our body.

CONFIRMED REPTILIAN